DTN.ORG Home DTN.ORG User's Guide Search DTN.ORG Complete Database Contact DTN.ORG Officials Moonbat Central

THIS IS BARACK OBAMA: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, IN ONE PLACE

THIS IS BARACK OBAMA:
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW, IN ONE PLACE

By DiscoverTheNetworks.org


CONTENTS

* Barack The Beloved
* Obama's Socialist Roots And Worldview
* Living Like Royalty, Perpetually Fundraising
* Deriding America On The World Stage (“Apology Tour”)
* Obama And Israel
* Obama The Divider
* Dividing Americans By Class
* Dividing Americans By Race & Ethnicity
* Dividing Americans By Gender
* Key Obama Appointees: Reflecting the President's Radicalism
* The Dreadful Economy
* Obama And Taxes
* Obama And Health Care
* Obama And Energy / Environment
* Obama And Homeland Security / War On Terror
* Killing Osama Bin Laden
* Obama And The Military
* Obama And Immigration
* Obama And Welfare Policy
* Obama And The Constitution / Supreme Court
* Obama And Abortion
* Obama And Education
* Obama and Gun Rights
* Obama And ACORN: A Corrupt, Unholy Alliance
* Obama And The Policies That Led To The Housing And Economic Crisis
* The “Fast & Furious” Gun Scandal
Obama And The Iraq War
* Obama And Iran
* Obama And Egypt
* Obama And Libya (Including The September 11, 2012 Terror Attack)
* Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
* Obama and Jihad: Appeasement & Denial


BARACK THE BELOVED
(Return to Table of Contents) 

From the moment Barack Obama emerged as a major player on the political stage, he has been hailed by many as a man of unrivaled brilliance, eloquence, compassion, resolve, and wisdom—to say nothing of his engaging humor, his “cool,” and his ability to “connect” with the average person. In the eyes of his admirers, Obama is, quite simply, larger than life—a once-in-a-generation phenomenon. Consider, for instance, what just a few of his more prominent backers have said about him since 2008:

  • Actor George Clooney called Obama “the best candidate I've ever seen,” a man who “possesses the one quality you cannot teach, you cannot learn, which is he is a leader.”
  • The rapper Chris Brown wore an “Obama or Die!” t-shirt to make his own sentiments clear.
  • Actress Halle Berry pledged, “I'll do whatever he says to do” in order to get Obama elected. “I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear,” she said with utmost humility.
  • Actress Scarlett Johansson cooed, “My heart belongs to Barack.”
  • Comedian Chris Rock warned prior to the 2008 election, “You'll be real embarrassed if he won and you wasn't down with it.”
  • Filmmaker Spike Lee has called Obama “a historic figure” who “changes how the world looks at the United States” and ushers in the dawn of “a new day, a better day.”
  • Comedienne and television host Ellen DeGeneres danced free-style with Obama in front of her live studio audience.
  • Actress Alfe Woodard compared Obama to a cool, refreshing drink: “If you take orange juice and mix it with a little seltzer you get then same effect and it's good for you. And that's Obama—he's good for this country.”
  • Actor Tom Hanks said, “He has the integrity and the inspiration to unify us as did FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy—and even Ronald Reagan—when they ran for the job.”
  • Actor Josh Lucas said, “I've been around him and shook his hand. He's a truly scholarly man. I'm very excited that we have this powerful, intelligent, constitutionally brilliant president. I find him very soulful in private.”
  • Actors Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas opened their home to co-host, with Eva Longoria, the first-ever national Latino fundraiser for Obama's candidacy, which cost between $5,000 and $35,800 to attend.
  • Comedian George Lopez helped launch the website Latinos for Obama.
  • Basketball legend Magic Johnson has called Obama “wise beyond his years,” “very intelligent,” “very capable,” “a winner,” and “truly unbelievable.”
  • Another iconic athlete, Lebron James, said, “He's an unbelievable guy, honestly. He's very smart. He's very cool.”
  • The rapper Drake said, “I hope somebody makes a movie about Obama's life soon because I could play him. That's the goal. I watch all the addresses. Any time I see him on TV, I don't change the channel. I definitely pay attention and listen to the inflections of his voice.”
  • Rapper Jay-Z says Obama is a better choice for president than Mitt Romney “by leaps and bounds.”
  • Singer-songwriter James Taylor says, “I really love this president. I love what it says about America, that we were able to elect this man.”
  • Singer Paul McCartney says, “I’m a big fan, he’s a great guy ... he’s doing great.”
  • Madonna, shouting to her audience at a September 2012 concert, likened Obama to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.—depicting Obama as someone who has “fought for our freedoms, not just African Americans, but for all people of color, okay, or people who are different, unconventional, or people who want to believe in what they want to believe.... So y’all better vote for fu--in’ Obama, okay?”
  • Oprah Winfrey put it more succinctly in 2008, when she said, simply: “He is the One.”
  • Soon after Obama's 2012 re-election victory, actor Jamie Foxx shouted to his audience at the annual Soul Train Awards: “It’s like church over here! First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior, Barack Obama! Barack Obama! Y'all stand up ...” He then led the crowd in chanting the President’s name.
  • In July 2012, TV newsman Chris Matthews praised Obama as follows: “He’s raised his family right. He’s fought his way all the way to the top of the Harvard Law Review ... Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American.”
  • The “little people” love President Obama, too, we are told. In August 2012, a USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that registered voters saw Obama as “more likable” than his challenger, Mitt Romney, by a 2-to-1 margin, 60% to 30%. And a Washington Post/ABC News Poll gave Obama an even wider advantage, with 64% identifying him as the “friendlier, more likable candidate,” vs. only 26% choosing Romney.

This document represents a rebuttal to the foregoing assessments of President Obama.

OBAMA'S SOCIALIST ROOTS & WORLDVIEW
(Return to Table of Contents)

Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many observers, from points all along the ideological spectrum, have been exceedingly reticent to describe him as such, as though there were insufficient evidence to make the case for a charge so impolite.

  • In February 2012, a Business Week headline stated bluntly that “it’s dumb to call Obama a socialist.”
  • In June 2012, the Associated Press published an article depicting the president merely as “a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream,” and suggesting that “the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.”
  • In July 2012, a New York Times op-ed piece by film director Milos Forman said that Obama is “not even close” to being a socialist.
  • Ezra Klein of the Washington Post casts Obama as no more radical than “a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.”
  • Leftist commentator Alan Colmes impugns those who “mischaracterize what Obama is doing as socialism, when there’s no government takeover” of the private sector.
  • And Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly—noting that he has seen “no evidence that the president wants to seize private property, which is what communists do”—concludes that Obama “is not a socialist, he’s not a communist, he’s a social-justice anti-capitalist.”

But a careful look at Barack Obama’s life story, his actions, his closest alliances, his long-term objectives, and his words, shows that he has long been, quite demonstrably, a genuine socialist. In the final analysis, Americans are, and indeed should be, free to vote for a socialist president if that is what they want. But if they choose that road, they ought to at least be aware that that is in fact what they are doing—rather than be misled into thinking they are merely supporting a “liberal,” a “progressive,” or a big-hearted advocate of “social justice.” They are supporting a man who is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a lifelong, committed socialist:

Frank Marshall Davis

  • The early groundwork for Obama’s socialist worldview was laid during his teen years, when he was mentored by the writer/poet Frank Marshall Davis, a longtime member of the Communist Party and the subject of a 601-page FBI file.” The co-founder of a Communist-controlled newspaper that consistently echoed the Soviet party line, Davis had previously been involved with the American Peace Mobilization, described by Congress as not only “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country,” but also “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” When Obama in 1979 headed off to Occidental College in California, Davis cautioned him not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh–.”


Obama's Socialism During His College Years

  • In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama recounts that he chose his friends “carefully” at Occidental, so as “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout.” Among those friends were all manner of radicals, including “the more politically active black students,” “the Chicanos,” “the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists.” Further, Obama writes that he and his similarly “alienated” college friends regularly discussed such topics as “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon [the socialist revolutionary], Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.”
  • David Remnick’s highly sympathetic biography of Obama—The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obamaconfirms that the future president and many of his closest friends at Occidental were unquestionably socialists.
  • John C. Drew, an Occidental College graduate who knew Obama personally in the early 1980s, reports that the young Obama of that period was “already an ardent socialist Marxist revolutionary”; was highly “passionate” about “Marxist theory”; embraced an “uncompromising, Marxist socialist ideology”; harbored a “sincere commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought”; and was, in the final analysis, a “pure Marxist socialist” who “sincerely believed a Marxist socialist revolution was coming.”


Obama Embraces “Incremental” Socialism

  • In the early 1980s, something profoundly important happened to Barack Obama. He was drawn into the powerful orbit of a strand of socialism that had resolved, as the revolutionary communist Van Jones would later put it, “to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” American socialists of that period, pained by the recent ascendancy of a conservative and popular presidential administration (Reagan), understood that no anti-capitalist revolution was going to take place in the United States anytime soon.
  • Consequently, many socialists in the U.S. put on a new face and pursued a new approach. As Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, explains, these socialists no longer advocated an immediate government takeover of the private economy. Their aim now was to gain influence through the work of community organizers dedicated to gradually infiltrating every conceivable American institution: schools and universities, churches, labor unions, the banking industry, the media, and a major political party.
  • Toward that end, the renowned socialist Michael Harrington established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to serve as a force that would work within the existing American political system—specifically, within the Democratic Party. Figuring that a move too far or too quick to the left would alienate moderate Democrats, the DSA sought to push the party leftward in a slow and gradual manner, on the theory that, over time, ever-increasing numbers of Democrats would become comfortable with socialism and would espouse it as their preferred ideology.
  • In Radical-in-Chief, Stanley Kurtz points out that this incrementalism became the modus operandi of the “democratic socialists” who embraced the ideals of Karl Marx but were convinced that a “peaceful” and gradual path represented “the only route to socialism that makes sense in America’s thoroughly democratic context.” They believed that “government ownership of the means of production”—the standard definition of socialism—could best be achieved by way of protracted evolution, not sudden revolution.
  • Kurtz explains that socialists, far from agreeing unanimously on tactics and strategies, have always engaged in “never-ending factional disputes” about whether they ought to “eschew capitalist-tainted politics and foment revolution,” or instead “dive into America’s electoral system and try to turn its political currents” toward “a piecemeal transition to a socialist world.”
  • At this point in his life, the twenty-something Obama made a calculated decision to embrace the DSA’s gradualist approach—under the deceptive banners of “liberalism,” “progressivism,” and “social justice.”
  • By no means, however, did this approach represent a rejection of Marx and his socialist doctrines. Kurtz notes that Marx himself, who “expected to see capitalism overthrown by a violent socialist revolution,” was nonetheless “willing to compromise his long-term goals in pursuit of short-term gains, particularly when he thought this democratic maneuvering would position the communist movement for more radical breakthroughs in the future”; that Marx himself “recognized that not only his enemies, but even potential followers could be put off by his most radical plans”; and that, “depending on context, Marx [himself] withheld the full truth of who he was and what he hoped to achieve.”


Obama Attends the Socialist Scholars Conferences

  • In the early 1980s, Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University in New York. During his time in the Big Apple, he attended at least two Socialist Scholars Conferences, DSA-sponsored events that quickly grew into the largest annual gatherings of socialists in all of North America. It is particularly noteworthy that Obama attended the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference, which was promoted as a celebration to “honor” the 100th anniversary of Karl Marx’s death.


Obama's Introduction to Community Organizing

  • Obama entered the work of community organizing in the spring of 1985, when he took a job with the New York branch of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the brainchild of the famous anti-capitalist, anti-corporate activist Ralph Nader. According to his PIRG supervisor, Eileen Hershenov, Obama had already developed a solid grasp of the radical strategies that underlay community organizing – specifically, how the Left used the “community” umbrella to advance its radical agendas. Thus he was comfortable discussing everything from the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the godfather of community organizing, to the organizing strategies of socialist groups like the (defunct) Students for a Democratic Society.


Obama's Community Organizing Is Funded By an Organization with Marxist Ideals

  • In June 1985, Obama moved to Chicago and took a community-organizing job with the Developing Communities Project, funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Viewing capitalism as a system steeped in injustice, CCHD states that “the causes of poverty are understood to be an aspect of ‘social sin’ rooted in our social and economic structures and institutions.” To address the problems allegedly spawned by capitalism, CCHD promotes transformative institutional change in the form of “alternative economic structures” that will “broaden the sharing of economic power.” The Catholic magazine Crisis observes that “the way the CCHD educates others about transformative change and empowerment” is very much “in line with the socialist and Marxist ideals so prevalent in community organizing.”


Community Organizing As a Socialist Enterprise

  • What, exactly, is “community organizing”? Dr. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation: “For ‘community organizers’ … racial resentments are a stock in trade…. What [they] organiz[e] are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.” The 2012 Obama campaign’s incessant emphasis on identity politics—seeking to divide the American people along lines of race, ethnicity, class, and gender—bears all the corrosive hallmarks of precisely the mindset that Dr. Sowell describes.
  • Stanley Kurtz provides additional vital insights into the striking parallels that exist between the world of community organizing and the DSA’s gradualist approach toward socialism: “Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while.”


Obama's Ties to Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Community Organizing

  • It is highly significant that three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, established by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who advocated mankind’s “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization … [to] a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful”—in other words, socialism. In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—where the ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent and moral confusion to spark social upheaval.
  • But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As author Richard Poe explains, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Promoting a strategy that was wholly consistent with the DSA approach discussed above, Alinsky advised radical organizers and their disciples to quietly, unobtrusively gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to then introduce changes from those platforms.
  • Obama himself went on to teach workshops on the Alinsky method for several years.
  • In 1990, eighteen years after Alinsky’s death, an essay penned by Obama was reprinted as a chapter in a book titled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
  • In 1998 at the Terrapin Theater in Chicago, Obama attended a performance of the play The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, which glorified the late radical. Following that performance, Obama took the stage and participated in a panel discussion about the show, along with several other socialists and communists such as Quentin Young and Heather Booth.
  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Saul Alinsky’s son David wrote the following: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we his approach 100th birthday.”


Obama and the Midwest Academy, a “Crypto-Socialist” Organization

  • As a young community organizer, Obama had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground for activists of his political ilk. Probably the most influential community-organizing-related entity in America at that time, the Midwest Academy worked closely with the DSA and synthesized Saul Alinsky’s organizing techniques with the practical considerations of electoral politics. Emphasizing “class consciousness” and “movement history,” the Academy’s training programs exposed students to the efforts and achievements of veteran activists from earlier decades. Recurring “socialism sessions” encompassed everything from Marx and Engels through Michael Harrington’s democratic socialism and the factional struggles of the Students for a Democratic Society, a radical organization that aspired to remake America’s government in a Marxist image.
  • Knowing that many Americans would be unreceptive to straightforward, hard-left advocacy, the Midwest Academy in its formative years was careful not to explicitly articulate its socialist ideals in its organizing and training activities. The group’s inner circle was wholly committed to building a socialist mass movement, but stealthily rather than overtly. As Midwest Academy trainer Steve Max and the prominent socialist Harry Boyte agreed in a private correspondence: “Every social proposal that we make must be [deceptively] couched in terms of how it will strengthen capitalism.” This strategy of hiding its own socialist agendas below the proverbial radar, earned the Academy the designation “crypto-socialist organization” from Stanley Kurtz.
  • “Nearly every thread of Obama’s career runs directly or indirectly through the Midwest Academy,” says Kurtz, and, as such, it represents “the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career.” Kurtz elaborates: “Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to [the Midwest Academy]; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer; and Obama worked closely at two foundations for years with yet another veteran organizer from the Midwest Academy, Ken Rolling. Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy.”


Obama's Socialist Pastor, Jeremiah Wright

  • Obama’s next major encounter with socialism took place within the sanctuary of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, pastored by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Best known for his undiluted contempt for the United States and its traditions, Wright has long been a proud prophet of black liberation theology, a movement that seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial solidarity, as opposed to the traditional Marxist emphasis on class solidarity. According to black liberation theology, the New Testament gospels can be properly understood only as calls for racial activism and revolution aimed at overturning the existing, white-dominated, capitalist order, and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia wherein blacks will unseat their white “oppressors” and become liberated from their deprivations—material and spiritual alike.
  • Beginning in the late 1980s, Obama spent fully 20 years attending Wright’s church, which openly promoted a “10-point vision” calling for “economic parity” and warning that “God … is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!” Impugning capitalism as a system whose inequities force “Third World people” to “live in grinding poverty,” Wright derides the United States as the “land of the greed and home of the slave.” Moreover, he has praised the socialist magazine Monthly Review for its “no-nonsense Marxism,” congratulating that publication for “dispel[ling] all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word ‘socialism’ or ‘Marxism.’”
  • This same Jeremiah Wright served as a mentor to Barack Obama for two decades. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Perhaps Obama’s most significant show of support for Wright’s ministry was his donation of some $27,500 to Trinity Church during 2005-06. Another report indicates that from 2005-07, Obama gave a total of $53,770 to Trinity. People simply do not give such large sums of money to causes in which they do not deeply believe. There is no reason in the world to suspect that Obama rejected any part of Wright’s message at any time between 1988 and early 2008. He disavowed Wright only when the latter’s radicalism threatened to become a political liability to Obama’s ambition for the White House.


Obama and ACORN, a Socialist Organization 

  • In the early to mid-1990s, Obama worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern explains that ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact promoted “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborates, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.”
  • In 2010, former ACORN insider Anita MonCrief confirmed the organization’s unmistakably socialist orientation: “As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics…. Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members. ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society…. I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied, ‘We never use the word Socialism.’ ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word.”
  • Smitten with Obama’s political and ideological makeup, ACORN in the early 1990s invited him to help train its staff in the tactics of community organizing. In 1995, Obama was one of a team of attorneys who sued, on ACORN’s behalf, for the implementation of a “Motor Voter” law in Illinois. Because Motor Voter laws allow people to register by mail without requiring that they provide any form of identification, they are, quite understandably, breeding grounds for voter-registration fraud. Thus, Jim Edgar, Illinois' Republican governor, opposed the law.
  • In a 2007 interview with ACORN representatives, then-presidential candidate Obama said enthusiastically: “You know you’ve got a friend in me. And I definitely welcome ACORN’s input…. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well…. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.”
  • During Obama’s 2008 presidential run, his campaign gave more than $800,000 to the ACORN front group Citizens’ Services, Inc., to fund voter-registration efforts.
  • Obama’s relationship with ACORN remained rock-solid right up until the organization’s dissolution amid immense scandal (involving voter-registration fraud, among other matters) in 2010.


Marxists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Former Weather Underground Terrorists, Launch Obama's Political Career

  • It was in the mid-1990s that Obama first decided to try his hand at electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. Remarkably, Obama launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help the fledgling politician make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were the infamous Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and ’70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group (described by Ayers as “an American Red Army”) that aspired to transform the U.S., by means of violence and even mass murder, into a Communist country. In 1974, while they were on the FBI's “Most Wanted” list, Ayers and Dohrn co-authored a book that openly advocated “revolutionary war” as “the only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism”; called for “a revolutionary communist party … to lead the struggle [to] seize power and build the new society”; and lauded socialism as the key to “the eradication of the social system based on profit.” Now, they were the key figures ushering Barack Obama into a political career.
  • Obama’s ties to Ayers and Dohrn are extensive. In 1995, Ayers appointed Obama as the first chairman of his newly created “school reform organization,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whose stated educational objective was to “teach against oppression” as embodied in “America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.”
  • From 1993-2001, Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which funded a host of left-wing groups and causes. From 1998-2001, Ayers served alongside him on that board.
  • In December 1997, Obama wrote a blurb praising Ayers' recently published book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, calling it “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”


Ayers and Dohrn Have Never Abandoned
Their Marxist, Anti-American Views

  • Ayers has never changed his Marxist, anti-American worldview. In 2001 he said: “I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.” Contemplating whether or not he might again use bombs against the U.S. sometime in the future, he wrote: “I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.” Also in 2001, Ayers expressed his enduring hatred for the United States: “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”
  • At a 2007 reunion of former members of the Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society, Ayers reemphasized his contempt for the U.S., asserting that the nation's chief hallmarks included “oppression,” “authoritarianism,” and “a kind of rising incipient American form of fascism.” Moreover, he claimed that the U.S. was guilty of pursuing “empire unapologetic[ally]”; waging “war without end” against “an undefined enemy that’s supposed to be a rallying point for a new kind of energized jingoistic patriotism”; engaging in “unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion”; oppressing brown- and black-skinned people with “white supremacy”; perpetrating “violent attacks” against “women and girls”; expanding “surveillance in every sphere of our lives”; and “targeting ... gay and lesbian people as a kind of a scapegoating gesture …”
  • In March 2008 Ayers became vice president for curriculum studies at the left-wing American Educational Research Association, thereby putting himself in a position to exert great influence over what is taught in America's teacher-training colleges and its public schools. Specifically, Ayers seeks to inculcate teachers-in-training with a “social commitment” to the values of “Marx,” and with a desire to become agents of social change in K-12 classrooms. Whereas “capitalism promotes racism and militarism,” Ayers explains, “teaching invites transformations” and is “the motor-force of revolution.”
  • Ayers also created, in collaboration with longtime communist Mike Klonsky, the so-called “Small Schools Movement” (SSM), where individual schools committed themselves to the promotion of specific political themes and pushed students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.”  A chief goal of SSM is to teach students that American capitalism is a racist, materialistic doctrine that has done incalculable harm to societies all over the world.
  • Dohrn. Likewise, has never changed her Marxist, anti-American orientation. In November 2007, she spoke at a 40th anniversary celebration of the Students for a Democratic Society. In her remarks, she praised her fellow radicals for their long-term efforts aimed at “overthrowing everything hateful about this government and corporate structure that we live in, capitalism itself.” Further, Dohrn lamented “the whole structural implications of white supremacy and the ways in which race and class and gender are just so intertwined in the United States.”


Obama Tries to Downplay His Close Alliance with Ayers

  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama was asked about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he said that Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” who happened to have done some bad things “forty years ago when I was six or seven years old.” He implied that to even raise a question about that relationship was a mean-spirited, guilt-by-association political tactic.
  • Obama's closest advisor, David Axelrod, said: “Bill Ayers lives in his [Obama's] neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.” But at the time of Axelrod's statement, Ayers' three children were in their late twenties and early thirties, whereas Obama's two daughters, Sasha and Malia, were aged six and nine, respectively.
  • But the enduring nature of Obama’s friendly relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn was evidenced by the fact that he attended a July Fourth barbecue at the couple’s home in 2005, even as the former terrorists continued to hold America—and capitalism—in utmost contempt.


Obama Gets Support from Alice Palmer, a Pro-Soviet Radical

  • Another key supporter of Obama’s 1996 entry into politics was Democratic state senator Alice Palmer of Illinois, who, as she prepared to run for Congress, hand-picked Obama as the person she hoped would fill her newly vacated state-senate seat. Toward that end, Palmer introduced Obama to party elders and donors as her preferred successor, and helped him gather the signatures required for getting his name placed on the ballot.
  • Palmer’s background is highly noteworthy: A veteran of the Midwest Academy, she consistently supported the Soviet Union and spoke out against the United States during the Cold War. In the 1980s she served as an official of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a Communist front group. In 1986 she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and expressed a high regard for the USSR’s system of “central planning.” And she applauded the Soviets for “carrying out a policy to resolve the inequalities between nationalities, inequalities that they say were inherited from capitalist and czarist rule.”


Obama Joins the Socialist “New Party”

  • During his Illinois state senate campaign in 1996, Obama actively sought the endorsement of the so-called New Party, a socialist political coalition whose objective was to promote the election of left-wing public officials—most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term goal was to gradually, incrementally move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist third party. As Stanley Kurtz puts it, the New Party “is best understood as an attempt to build a mass-based political front for a largely socialist party leadership.”
  • New Party co-founder Joel Rogers once penned a piece in the Marxist journal New Left Review, wherein he made it clear that the organization was a socialist enterprise at its core. Not only was Obama successful in obtaining the New Party’s endorsement, but he also used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers, and by 1996 Obama himself had become a New Party member.


Support from Carl Davidson, Marxist


Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America

  • On February 25, 1996, Obama (who was then a candidate for the 13th Illinois Senate District) was a guest panelist at a “townhall meeting on economic insecurity,” sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). His fellow panelists included William Julius Wilson (a longtime DSA activist from the Center for the Study of Urban Inequality) and DSA National Political Committee member Joseph Schwartz. In his remarks, Obama discussed how government could play a “constructive” role in improving society.


“I Actually Believe in Redistribution”

  • Obama’s commitment to the redistribution of wealth—an unmistakable hallmark of socialism—is deep, longstanding, and well-documented. At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, he said: “There has been a systematic ... propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved.... The trick is, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot.”


Viewing the Constitution As an Impediment to “Redistributive Change”

  • Obama again clearly articulated his commitment to wealth redistribution during a guest appearance on Chicago’s WBEZ public radio in 2001, when he was an Illinois state senator. In that interview, Obama lauded the ability of community organizations “to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” He lamented, however, that the Supreme Court had “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society”; that the Court had not been able to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” a document that unfortunately “doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf”; and that he himself was “not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” even though he found it easy to “come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
  • In a penetrating analysis of Obama's remarks, Bill Whittle of National Review Online writes: “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw.”


Depicting the Free Market As a Heartless Agent of “Social Darwinism”

  • In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as one that promises “to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.” “In Washington,” said Obama, “they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or her self. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity.”


Obama Names the Socialist Cornel West to His Black Advisory Council

  • When Obama ran for president in 2008, he formed a Black Advisory Council that included Professor Cornel West—a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a former supporter of the now-defunct (socialist) New Party, and an avid admirer of (the socialist) Jeremiah Wright. Identifying himself as a “progressive socialist,” West contends that “Marxist thought is an indispensable tradition for freedom fighters.” Viewing capitalism as the root cause of America’s “unbridled grasp at power, wealth and status,” West warns: “Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit—often at the cost of the common good.”
  • When Obama appeared with Professor West at a Harlem, New York campaign fundraiser, West introduced him as “my brother and my companion and comrade.” Obama, in response, called West “a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, [and] an oracle.”


Advocating Massive Redistribution of Wealth on a Global Scale

  • As the Democratic primaries were winding down in May 2008, Obama quietly steered his Global Poverty Act (GPA), known as S. 2433, through the U.S. Senate. He characterized the bill as one that required “the president to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs (non-governmental organizations).” According to Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid, the GPA would make America's foreign-aid spending decisions “subservient to the dictates of the United Nations” and, over a 13-year period, would cost the U.S. roughly $845 billion “over and above what [it] already spends.”


Global Wealth Redistribution via Skyrocketing Foreign Aid

  • From fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, with the U.S. economy mired in a deep recession, the Obama administration increased federal spending on foreign aid by at least 80%. In fiscal 2008, the government spent a total of $11.427 billion in international assistance programs. During Obama's presidency, the corresponding totals have been $14.827 billion in 2009; $20.038 billion in 2010; $20.599 billion in 2011; and $20.058 billion through the first 11 months of fiscal 2012.


Obama Says that Only Government Can Rescue Ailing Economy

  • On February 6, 2009, President Obama held his first prime-time press conference, where, in reference to the economic downturn that was afflicting the U.S., he said: “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle.”


Support from the Leader of the Communist Party USA

  • In early February 2009, it was reported that Communist Party USA leader Sam Webb had recently delivered a major speech about President Obama, titled “Off and Running: Opportunity of a Lifetime.” Said Webb: “We now have not simply a friend, but a people’s advocate in the White House…. An era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House.”


Venezuela’s Communist President Hugo Chavez Praises Obama's Socialist Mindset

  • In a nationally televised, June 2, 2009 speech on the “curse” of capitalism, Venezuela’s Communist President Hugo Chavez made an approving reference to Obama's recent move to nationalize General Motors. In a related remark directed to Chavez's longtime friend and ally Fidel Castro, the Venezuelan President suggested that Obama's brand of socialism was perhaps more extreme than that of any other world leader. Said Chavez: “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his [Obama's] right.”


Obama's Radical Appointees (Revolutionary Communist Van Jones, etc.)


Obama’s socialist orientation is further manifest in a number of the political appointments he has made as President. For example:

  • He named Van Jones—a longtime revolutionary communist who famously declared that “we [are] gonna change the whole [economic] system”—as his “green jobs czar” in 2009.
  • He appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International, as his “environment czar.”
  • He appointed John Holdren—who not only views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment, but strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders—as his “science czar.”
  • He named Hilda Solis, a former officer of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the socialist wing of the House of Representatives), as his labor secretary.
  • He chose Anita Dunn—a woman who has cited the late Mao Zedong, China's longtime Communist dictator and the killer of some 60 million people, as one of her “favorite political philosophers”—to serve as White House communications director.


The Communist Ties of Obama's Two Closest Political Advisors

  • Valerie Jarrett, the daughter-in-law of a journalist with ties to the Communist Party, was largely responsible for persuading the communist Van Jones, whom she admired tremendously, to join the Obama administration in 2009.
  • David Axelrod, the chief architect of Obama’s presidential campaigns, was mentored, as a young man, by the lifelong communist David Canter. Axelrod’s other mentor, Don Rose, was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, an organization replete with communists and Sixties radicals. Rose also belonged to the Alliance to End Repression—a suspected Communist Party front—and he did some press work for the Students for a Democratic Society.


Obama Awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to an Avowed Socialist

  • In May 2012, Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can receive, to the iconic union activist Dolores Huerta. A longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Huerta had previously won a Eugene Debs Award, named after the man who founded the Socialist Party of America. On at least one occasion, she was a guest speaker at a gathering of the Socialist Scholars Conference. And she is an open admirer of Venezuela’s communist president, Hugo Chavez.


Communist Party USA Backs Obama's Re-election

  • In June 2012, Marxist John Case, who writes for various Communist Party USA publications, wrote a piece titled “The Danger of a Romney Election,” which stated that: “Re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away—or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”

Obama's Striking Ideological Resemblance to the Party of European Socialists

  • In January 2012, a Forbes magazine piece documented the striking similarities between President Obama’s political agendas and those of the Party of European Socialists—particularly as regards the expansion of the welfare state; government-funded universal access to education and health care; a progressive taxation system designed to redistribute income and wealth on a massive scale; a belief that state control is necessary to rein in the “greed” that underlies market forces which benefit only “the privileged few”; a reliance on “international institutions” and “international consensus” as the basis of foreign-policy decisions; and environmental policies that favor “carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology … even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.”
  • Concluded Forbes: “If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near-perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.”


The President of the United States Is a Socialist”

  • Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, points out that Obama, from his teenage years to the present, “has lived in a thoroughly socialist world”; that Obama “never abandoned his early socialist convictions but instead discreetly retained them, on the model of his colleagues and mentors in the world of community organizing.” The final sentence of Kurtz’s book is its most powerful: “The president of the United States is a socialist.”


Important Quotes that Reveal President Obama's Socialist Mindset


Though Obama—in the tradition of the Democratic Socialists of America, ACORN, and the Midwest Academy—has carefully avoided openly referring to himself as a socialist, he gives us a glimpse of his mindset every now and then, particularly when he is busy fomenting class envy, demonizing financial prosperity, and advocating wholesale wealth redistribution. Recall, for instance:

  • when Obama famously told Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”), during the 2008 campaign, that a tax increase on small businesses would be justified because “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”;
  • when he told an Illinois audience in April 2010, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”;
  • when he made any one of his innumerable disparaging references to “the top 1 percent,” the “millionaires and billionaires,” the “fat-cat bankers,” and the “corporate jet owners” who are “sitting pretty” as they live lavishly at the expense of “the bottom 90 percent”;
  • when he flatly rejected “this brand of ‘you’re-on-your-own’ economics” in January 2012;
  • when he condemned the “ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else”;
  • when he advocated “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared”;
  • when he congratulated the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street radicals for “inspir[ing]” him, reminding him “what we are still fighting for,” and being “the reason why I ran for this office in the first place”;
  • when he claimed: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”—a reference to the government-funded “roads and bridges” that presumably made it possible for the business to thrive;
  • and when he said, during the closing statement of his October 3, 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, that he sought to create an America where “everybody's getting a fair shot, and everybody's getting a fair share.” He then quickly corrected himself: “[E]verybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules.”


The Quest to “Fundamentally Transform” America, “Brick by Brick, Block by Block”

  • Five days before the 2008 presidential election, again Obama articulated his intent to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Earlier in the campaign, he had pledged to “remake the world as it should be,” and to “change this country, brick by brick, block by block.” Earlier still, he had told an audience of supporters that “we’re not just going to win an election but more importantly we’re going to transform this nation.” These ominous proclamations sit at the very heart of the socialist mindset, the grandiose quest to tear down the status quo and erect a new, utopian world upon the scattered rubble of its despised ruins.
  • Those quotes echo what Obama had said many years earlier, in an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990: “I feel good when I'm engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what's happening to poor folks in this society.... Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous. I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”


An Illustration of Obama's Embrace of Incremental Socialism

  • The strategy of settling for incrementalism rather than sudden, sweeping revolution was displayed with vivid clarity during the healthcare debates of 2009-10. Obama was already on record as having stated emphatically, in a 2003 speech at an AFL-CIO event: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan”—i.e., a government-run system.
  • But by 2007, with the White House clearly within his reach, Obama began to make allowances for the increasingly evident fact that a single-payer plan was not politically palatable to a large enough number of American voters. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he said in May 2007. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
  • He made similar references to a “transition step” and “a transitional system” on other occasions during the campaign. In the summer of 2008, Obama declared that “if I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” but acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, such a result could only come about “over time.”
  • Obamacare, then, was deliberately designed to be a stepping stone toward total government control of healthcare—a mere way station along the road toward the “radical ends” that the president ultimately sought to achieve.


A Successful Businessman Expresses His Resentment of Obama's Class-Warfare Rhetoric

  • In October 2012, Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts told political commentator/TV host Jon Ralston: “I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs according to the state of Nevada's measurement. If the number is 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president, who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs. I'm a job creator. Guys like me are job creators and we don't like having a bulls-eye painted on our back. The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees. By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money 'billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.' I gave 120% of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years. I can't stand the idea of being demagogued, that is put down, by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works.”


LIVING LIKE ROYALTY, PERPETUALLY FUNDRAISING
(Return to Table of Contents

Taxpayers Spend $1.4 Billion Annually on the Obama Family

  • In 2011, American taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family; by contrast, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family. In his 2012 book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, author Robert Keith Gray writes that the $1.4 billion figure included the president's innumerable flights on an Air Force One that was “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.” “The most concerning thing,” said Gray, was “the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election”—most notably by using Air Force One to criss-cross the country campaigning and fundraising.


Barack and Michelle Obama Take Two Separate Jets to Vacation Spot in Martha's Vineyard

  • One of the innumerable examples of the Obamas' lack of respect for American taxpayers occurred on August 19, 2011, when the President and his family flew to Martha's Vineyard for a ten-day vacation at a $50,000-per-week rented estate. They traveled on two separate jets, with the First Lady and the two Obama children arriving four hours earlier than the President. At much extra cost to taxpayers, Mrs. Obama (along with any extra staff and Secret Service personnel that had to be enlisted to go with her) traveled on a specially designed military aircraft instead of with her husband on Air Force One. She also had her own motorcade escorting her from the airport to her vacation residence. According to NewsBusters.com: “This is not the first time Michelle has gone on vacation ahead of the president on the taxpayers’ tab. Last December, she racked up what was likely more than $100,000 in expenses leaving early for their Hawaii vacation.”

 

The Perpetual Fundraiser

  • Between April 14, 2011 (the day he hosted the first fundraiser of his re-election campaign) and August 24, 2012, President Obama attended only 198 of his daily intelligence briefings. During that same period, he held at least 203 fundraising events. In fact, he held more re-election fundraisers than the previous five presidents combined—Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.


DERIDING AMERICA ON THE WORLD STAGE ("APOLOGY TOUR")
(Return to Table of Contents

Likening the Jim Crow South to Nazi Germany

  • In a January 18, 2001 radio interview, Obama said that the doctrines of WWII-era Nazism were “uncomfortably similar to what [was] going on, back here at home” in the Jim Crow South.


In Response to 9/11, Obama Calls for More U.S. Foreign Aid

  • Eight days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Obama asserted that the attacks had grown out of “a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair”; exhorting Americans to be “unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent”; and urging the U.S. “to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe.”


Accusing the U.S. of “Just Air-Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians”

  • In August 2007, Obama suggested that as a result of President Bush’s poor military leadership, U.S. troops in Afghanistan had done a disservice to their mission by “just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”


All Too Often the United States Starts by Dictating”

Six days after his inauguration, Barack Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network owned, in part, by the Saudi government. During that interview:

  • Obama said: “All too often the United States starts by dictating ... and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.”
  • Obama apologized to the Muslim world for former President Bush’s use of the term “Islamic fascism.” Said Obama: “[T]he language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations—whether Muslim or any other faith in the past—that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.”
  • Obama said the Islamic world’s ill will toward the United States was a result of the Bush administration’s “cowboy diplomacy,” which had eroded Muslims’ faith in the purity of U.S. intentions. “We are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world,” he said, “that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest.”


Rejecting the Practice of America “Simply Dictating Solutions”

  • At a news conference during the G-20 Summit in April 2009, Obama tried to distinguish his own policies from those of the Bush administration by issuing a verbal slap at his predecessor in the White House: “I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions.”


“America Has Shown Arrogance”

  • In April 3, 2009 speech in Strasbourg, France, Obama criticized his home country by saying: “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”


Dismissing “American Exceptionalism”

  • On April 4, 2009 in Strasbourg, France, Obama was asked whether he believed in the concept of American exceptionalism. He replied: “I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”


America's “Legacies of Slavery and Segregation”

  • In an April 7, 2009 speech to the Turkish Parliament, Obama said: “The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”


America's Tendency to “Dictate Our Terms”

  • On April 17, 2009 in Tobago, Obama said: “We have at times been disengaged, and at times sought to dictate our terms.”


Obama Fails to Defend America against Verbal Assaults by Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez

  • When President Obama traveled to Tobago in April 2009 to meet with Latin American leaders, he sat through a 50-minute diatribe by Nicaragua’s Communist President Daniel Ortega, who charged that the U.S. had been guilty of expansionist aggression for at least a century. In particular, Noriega condemned President John F. Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs effort to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. When asked afterward what he thought of Ortega’s speech, Obama replied, “It was 50 minutes long. That’s what I thought.”
  • When Obama himself later addressed those attending the conference, he did not defend his country against Ortega’s accusations. Instead, he took the occasion to rebuke America: “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.” He also said, humorously: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened [the Bay of Pigs] when I was three months old.” (It bears mention that Obama’s chronology was flawed. The Bay of Pigs invasion occurred in April 1961; Obama was not born until August of that year.)
  • Also in Tobago, Venezuela’s Communist President Hugo Chavez gifted Obama a copy of The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent—a book-length diatribe by Eduardo Galeano that described the U.S. under President Bush as “a terrorist menace” and a “machine of killing peoples” that was voraciously “devouring the world resources … each day.” Obama accepted the book politely and later said, “I think it was, it was a nice gesture to give me a book. I’m a reader.”
  • This was the same Hugo Chavez who had told an Iranian audience three years earlier: “Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire. This [task] must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world.” On other recent occasions, Chavez had called the U.S. “the greatest threat looming over our planet,” a nation whose “hegemonic pretensions ... are placing at risk the very survival of the human species.” He had referred to President Bush as “the Devil” and an aspiring “world dictator.” And he had asserted that “the government of the United States doesn't want peace,” but rather “wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.”


Accusing President Bush of Having “Trimmed Facts and Evidence to Fit Ideological Predispositions”

  • In a May 21, 2009 speech Regarding the War on Terror, Obama said: “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. In other words, we went off course. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight, that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”


America Acted “Unilaterally Without Regard for the Interests of Others”

On September 23, 2009, President Obama addressed the UN General Assembly for the first time. In that speech, he made an effort to differentiate his own presidency and policies from those of his predecessor, George W. Bush:

  • “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. A part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies and a belief on, on certain critical issues, America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.”
  • “On my first day in office, I prohibited without expectation or equivocation the use of torture by the United States of America.”
  • “I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.”
  • “America has, too often, been selective in its promotion of democracy.”


State Department Issues Veiled Apology to Rioters Who Stormed U.S. Embassy in Egypt

  • On September 11, 2012, Islamist protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, where they destroyed the American flag and replaced it with a black Islamist flag that read, “There is one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.” The protesters said they were angry over a film that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad and had been produced in the U.S.  In response to the mayhem, the State Department issued a veiled apology to those Muslims whose “religious feelings” had supposedly been “hurt” by “those [i.e., people like the filmmaker] who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”


OBAMA AND ISRAEL
(Return to Table of Contents)

The Most Anti-Israel President in American History

  • Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said in 2010, “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis of historic proportions.”
  • Author and scholar Dennis Prager concurred, “Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory.”
  • In the spring of 2011, David Parsons, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, said: “There's a traditional, special relationship between America and Israel that Obama is basically throwing out the window in a sense.”
  • David Rubin, a U.S.-born Israeli author and an expert on the Middle East, put it this way: “President Obama is very harmful for Israel and very dangerous for the future of Judeo-Christian civilization.”
  • The author and economist Thomas Sowell asserts that Obama's relationship with Israel has been consistent with the president's pattern of “selling out our allies to curry favor with our adversaries.”
  • Political analyst Charles Krauthammer observes that Obama has “undermined” Israel as a result of either his “genuine antipathy” toward the Jewish state or “the arrogance of a blundering amateur.”
  • In October 2012, Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international outreach branch, said that Obama has “not been a friend of Israel,” and that the President's policies have been “catastrophic.”
  • Meanwhile, the Israeli populace is jittery. According to a 2010 poll commissioned by The Jerusalem Post, only 9% of Jewish Israelis saw the Obama administration as being more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian.

The following section of this report lays out Obama's words, actions, and key affiliations vis à vis Israelnot only during his time in the White House, but during the two decades preceding his presidency as well.


Obama's Longtime Association with the Anti-Semitic Jeremiah Wright

  • For nearly two decades, Barack Obama was a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor,” his “mentor,” and “one of the greatest preachers in America.” On December 4, 2007, Wright was named as a member of the Obama presidential campaign's newly created African American Religious Leadership Committee.


What Wright Has Said About Israel and Jews

  • Wright has long been a vocal critic of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for inflicting “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinian people. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of “white racism.”
  • Likening Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct any business in, or with, Israel.
  • Wright has referred to Israel as a “dirty word,” asserting that “ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity.”
  • At a May 18, 2009 anti-Israel rally in a Chicago suburb, Wright and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers jointly addressed a crowd of more than 400 people just prior to participating in an annual walk designed to call attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • Asked by an interviewer in June 2009 whether he had spoken to President Obama since the latter had taken his oath of office five months earlier, Wright replied: “Them Jews aren't going to let him [Obama] talk to me.... They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do.”
  • Wright went on to condemn Israel, saying: “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's [supposedly] anti-Israel.”


Obama's Ties to Rashid Khalidi and the Arab American Action Network

  • During his Illinois state senate years in the mid- to late 1990s, Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, where he became friendly with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Khalidi was once an operative of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the political apparatus of Yasser Arafat, the godfather of 20th-century terrorism and the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolf Hitler. Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home.
  • Characterizing Israel as a “racist” state and “basically an apartheid system in creation,” in 1995 Khalidi and his wife founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), noted for its contention that Israel’s creation in 1948 was a "catastrophe" for Arab people. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, with Obama serving on its board, made grants totaling $75,000 to the AAAN.
  • In 2003 Obama attended a farewell party in Khalidi’s honor when the latter was preparing to leave Chicago to embark on a new position at Columbia University. At that event, Obama paid public tribute to Khalidi as someone whose insights had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.” Khalidi later told the largely pro-Palestinian attendees that Obama deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat, stating: “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.”


Obama's Ties to Ali Abunimah, Former VP of the Arab American Action Network

  • Onetime AAAN vice president Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a website that, like AAAN, refers to Israel’s creation as a “catastrophe.” Abunimah believes that Palestinian violence is caused entirely by Israel's perpetration of “land confiscation,” its “ongoing orgy of violence,” its “routine human-rights abuses,” its practice of “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing,” and its “attempted genocide” against the Palestinians—transgressions that have left Israel with “a profound and irreversible lack” of legitimacy.
  • In 2008 Abunimah told interviewer Amy Goodman: “I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator—when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”
  • In June 2007 Abunimah recalled: “When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel’s security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the ‘Israeli-Palestinian’ situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: ‘The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace,’ Obama was quoted as saying.”
  • Also in 2007, Abunimah said: “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and U.S. policy, ‘Keep up the good work!’”


Candidate Obama Publicly Criticizes Israel's Conservative Likud Party

  • In February 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama told an audience in Cleveland: “There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you're anti-Israel.” When Obama made that assertion, Likud had already been out of power for two years, and the country was being led by the centrist Kadima government which had been pursuing territorial compromise of unprecedented magnitude. Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal points out: “It was under Likud that Israel made its largest territorial compromises—withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza.”


Candidate Obama's Reluctance to Publicly Refer to Terrorism Against Israel

  • When running for President, then-Senator Obama referred, in his July 2008 speech in Berlin, to the need to “dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.” Remarkably, he made no mention of Israel.


Choosing
the Leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-Affiliated Group to Recite a Prayer at His 2009 Inauguration

  • Obama selected Ingrid Mattson—then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had previously been named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in a case investigating the illegal funding of Hamas terrorists—to recite a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies in January 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological forebear of both Hamas and al Qaeda, openly promotes the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate and advocates the destruction of Israel. Later that year, Obama sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention.


President Obama's First Call to a Foreign Leader Was to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

  • Two days after his inauguration, President Obama placed his first phone call to a foreign leader—Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who had repeatedly emphasized the importance of “implementing the principles of Yasser Arafat,” and had authorized lump-sum payments of $2,200 apiece to the surviving family members of Palestinian suicide bombers. Further, Abbas has praised the terrorist group Hezbollah as a shining example of “Arab resistance” against alleged Israeli oppression; he has lauded Palestinian terrorists as “strugglers” and “martyrs” whom “Allah loves”; he has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel's right to exist; he has headed the Fatah Party, whose Charter advocates terrorism against, and the annihilation of, Israel; he has urged Palestinians to “unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the Intifada.”


Obama's Ties to the Son of an Arafat Confidante

  • In 2007 Obama appointed Robert Malley, a director with the International Crisis Group (ICG), as a foreign policy advisor to his campaign. Over the years, Malley—whose late father was a confidante of Yasser Arafat and a beneficiary of Soviet funding—has penned numerous articles blaming Israel for the failure of the 2000 Camp David peace talks, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. He co-wrote some of these articles with former Arafat advisor Hussein Agha.
  • In mid-2008, the Obama campaign was forced—out of political necessity—to sever its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that he had secretly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders.
  • Notwithstanding Malley's fall from grace, President Obama's foreign policies have been very much aligned with the recommendations of Malley. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama stated in a television interview broadcast in the Middle East: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating ... and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and to negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran—even as as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”


Obama's Ties to J Street, Advocate of Israeli Concessions

  • President Obama has also demonstrated an ideological compatibility with J Street, an organization which believes that peace between Arabs and Israelis depends wholly upon the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own.” Toward that end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” and “dialogue over confrontation.”
  • Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections.” In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”
  • In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street's agendas when he sent national security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.


Obama Appoints a DHS Official with Ties to Islamic Extremists

  • In April 2009, President Obama appointed Los Angeles deputy mayor Arif Alikhan as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security. Two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan—who once called the jihadist terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”—had participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Alikhan had previously served as deputy mayor of homeland security and public safety for the City of Los Angeles. There, he was responsible for derailing the LAPD's efforts to monitor activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) were known to exist, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.


Obama Appoints a Pro-Sharia Advisor


What Dalia Mogahed Has Said About Sharia and Radical Islam

  • According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, in 2007 Mogahed “appeared to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a peaceful alternative to jihadists.”
  • In a 2007 interview, Mogahed was asked to comment on the harsh punishments (like stonings, canings, and dismemberment) associated with Sharia Law. She replied that Muslims generally tend to view Sharia as a framework for achieving “a more just society,” “protection of human rights,” and “rule of law.”
  • Mogahed has consistently defended radical Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, both of which have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. At the Religion Newswriters Association's annual conference in Washington, DC in September 2008, she stated that it would be unfair for those groups to be “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” about their affiliations to Islamic radicals. “[T]here is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution-building among Muslims,” said Mogahed. “And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt.”
  • Mogahed was a leading voice in the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement, which in September 2008 issued a 154-page recommendation paper—a number of whose suggestions (on how to improve America's relationship with Muslims globally) were eventually adopted by the Obama administration. The paper specifically called on the U.S. to engage opposition parties (including the Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, and to use intermediaries to engage Hamas—in hopes of moderating the terror group.
  • In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia Law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world. They also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions. Instead she stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,” and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associated Islamic Law with “gender justice.”


Obama Goes to Cairo to Address the Muslim World

  • On June 4, 2009, President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt to deliver a much-anticipated address to the Muslim world. During the weeks prior to the speech, he made sure to invite Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend. During the speech itself, the President stated that “anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.” But he made no mention of the Arab anti-Semitism of the World War II era (and beyond), even though he was speaking in the very country that had made a national hero of Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin as Hitler's guest, helping the fuehrer facilitate the Final Solution. Nor did Obama once mention the word “terrorism.”
  • Drawing a moral equivalence between the historical experiences of the Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs, Obama said: “The Jewish people were persecuted.… [A]nti-Semitism … culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…. Six million Jews were killed…. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
  • Obama also made reference to the “pain” of the “dislocation” experienced by some 600,000 Arabs during the 1948 war—a war that began when five Arab armies united to attack Israel in an effort to destroy the nascent Jewish state on the very day of its birth. But he said nothing of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly expelled from regions all over the Arab Middle East, where they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds, even thousands, of years.
  • “There has been a stalemate,” Obama elaborated. “Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history…. It's easy to point fingers—for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks."
  • Professor and Hudson Institute fellow Anne Bayefsky observed: “Calling the Israeli-Arab conflict a ‘stalemate’ represents an abysmal failure to acknowledge historical reality. The modern state of Israel emerged after an internationally approved partition plan of November 1947 that would have created two states, one Jewish and one Arab; this plan was accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. One people has always been prepared to live in peace, and the other has chosen war in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and 1973 and 1982, and renewed terrorism after its every loss.”


Obama Urges Jewish Leaders to Put “Daylight” between the U.S. and Israel

  • In July 2009, President Obama hosted American Jewish leaders at the White House and informed them that he sought to put “daylight” between America and Israel. “For eight years [i.e., during the Bush administration], there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished,” Obama said. In that same meeting, the President told those in attendance that Israel would need “to engage in serious self-reflection.”


Obama's First Address to the UN General Assembly

  • In his first address to the UN General Assembly in September 2009, President Obama devoted five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his remarks, Obama boasted that under his administration, the U.S. had already joined the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). He did not mention that the UNHRC had adopted more resolutions and decisions against Israel than against all the other 191 UN member states combined. Moreover, many of those member states are themselves notorious human rights abusers.
  • Regarding the Mideast conflict, Obama drew a moral equivalence between the suffering of the Israelis and of the Palestinians. Most notably, he rejected the legitimacy of Israeli “settlements” and he referred to Israel as an “occup[ier]” of Palestinian territory: “We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”


Obama Opposes Israel's Plan to Build Houses in Settlement Near Jerusalem

  • In November 2009, Obama expressed displeasure over Israel's approval of a plan to build 900 new homes in Gilo, a settlement of 40,000 Israelis situated in a part of the West Bank that Israel had captured (and annexed to Jerusalem) in the 1967 war in which the armies of several Arab nations sought to destroy the Jewish state. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to limit new construction in West Bank settlements, he stated that the Jerusalem municipality would be excluded from any settlement limits sought by Washington. Said Obama: “I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.”


Obama Laments that Israel Has Been Unwilling to Make any “Bold Gestures” for Peace

  • In a January 2010 interview, President Obama said—despite Israel’s acceptance-in-principle of a Palestinian state, its readiness to negotiate, and its commitment to an unprecedented ten-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria—that Israel theretofore had made no “bold gestures” for peace.


The Obama Administration Again Criticizes Israeli Settlements

  • During Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel in March 2010, a Jerusalem municipal office announced plans to build some 1,600 housing units for Jews in a section of that city. In response, Biden reportedly told Prime Minister Netanyahu: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”


Sustained and Blatant Disrespect for Israel

  • The Wall Street Journal describes what happened in the aftermath of Biden's visit: “The president launched an unprecedented weeks-long offensive against Israel. Mr. Biden very publicly departed Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a now-infamous 45-minute phone call, telling him that Israel had 'harmed the bilateral relationship.' (The State Department triumphantly shared details of the call with the press.) The Israeli ambassador was dressed-down at the State Department, Mr. Obama's Middle East envoy canceled his trip to Israel, and the U.S. joined the European condemnation of Israel. Moments after Mr. Biden concluded his visit to the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority held a ceremony to honor Dalal Mughrabi, who led one of the deadliest Palestinian terror attacks in history: the so-called Coastal Road Massacre that killed 38, including 13 children and an American. The Obama administration was silent. But that same day, on ABC, [Obama adviser David] Axelrod called Israel's planned construction of apartments in its own capital an 'insult' and an 'affront' to the United States. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went on Fox News to accuse Mr. Netanyahu of 'weakening trust' between the two countries. Ten days later, Mr. Netanyahu traveled to Washington to mend fences but was snubbed at a White House meeting with President Obama—no photo op, no joint statement, and he was sent out through a side door.”
  • Washington Post columnist and Middle East expert Jackson Diehl wrote that “Netanyahu is being treated [by Obama] as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator.”
  • According to the Jerusalem Post, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, received “the same message of American disapproval and outrage” from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg. Oren called the incident “the worst [for Israel] with the U.S. in 35 years.”
  • It should be noted that, contrary to the Obama administration’s insistence that Israel was jeopardizing peace by encroaching on negotiable terrain, the construction site in Jerusalem was anything but disputed territory. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and the construction site was in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood where housing construction had been underway since the early 1990s. By its insistence that Israel cease all building in East Jerusalem, it was the Obama administration, and not Israel, that was breaking with precedent.


Obama Refuses to Intervene in an Israeli Dispute with Turkey and Egypt

  • In April 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu withdrew from an Obama-sponsored Washington summit on nuclear proliferation after it became apparent that Turkey and Egypt intended to use the occasion to denounce Israel's nuclear program; Obama chose not to intervene in this dispute.


Obama Sidesteps Referring to Islamic Terrorism As the Cause of Daniel Pearl's Death

  • In May 2010, when President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter, had been beheaded by Islamic terrorists because he was a Jew. Nor did the President mention that Pearl, in the video recorded of his gruesome murder, had been forced to state specifically that he was an American Jew. Instead, Obama euphemistically referred only in general terms to Pearl’s “loss.”


The Obama Administration's Response to a Gaza-Bound, Terror-Linked Flotilla

  • In early 2010, a Turkish organization known as the IHH—which has known ties to Hamas, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood—collaborated with the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) to organize a six-ship flotilla of Muslim and anti-Israel activists who would sail to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel's naval blockade (which had been established to prevent Hamas from importing weaponry from Iran and other allies abroad). The IHH owned and operated the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla's lead ship. The flotilla set out toward Gaza in late May of 2010. For several days, Israel issued warnings that the ships would not be permitted to dock in Gaza without first submitting to an inspection of their cargoes. When the crews of the vessels refused to comply, Israeli commandos intercepted the flotilla on May 31. The IHH-affiliated activists responded violently, attacking the commandos with knives, clubs and pistol fire. In the melee that ensued, nine activists were killed and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded.
  • In the wake of the flotilla incident, MSNBC reported that the Obama administration “wants to see a new approach that would allow more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area while guaranteeing Israel's security”; that there was “a growing consensus within the administration that U.S. and Israeli policy toward Gaza must change”; that “White House officials said they had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to use 'caution and restraint' before the raid on the aid convoy”; that Vice President Joe Biden was in favor of putting “as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow [the Palestinians] to get building materials and other designated humanitarian aid into Gaza”; and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a Security Council statement condemning the “acts” that had cost the lives of the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
  • In remarks he subsequently made during a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama urged Israel to put a stop to its settlement activity and called on the Palestinians to avoid inciting further confrontation. He also called on Israel to reassess its blockade on Gaza, adding that “the way to solve this problem” would, by necessity, involve the “creation of the Palestinian state.”


$400 Million in Aid for Palestinians

  • In an effort to contain the political fallout from the Mavi Marmara incident, in June 2010 President Obama offered to send an extra $400 million in “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This was to be above and beyond the $600+ million in aid which the U.S. was already sending to the Palestinian Authority each year.


The Obama Administration Allows the Palestinian Flag to Fly at the PLO Office in DC

  • On July 25, 2010, JTA News reported that “the Obama administration will allow the PLO office in Washington to fly the Palestinian flag and assume the title of 'delegation'”; that this decision had “symbolic value” but had “no meaning under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”; and that the White House “suggested the [measure] would help spur the Palestinians toward direct peace talks with Israel.”


A Stark Contrast between Obama's Holiday Messages to Jews and to Muslims

  • In his Rosh Hashanah message in 2010, President Obama only once referred to “Jews”; made no reference at all to “Judaism”; promoted the creation of a Palestinian state; and never mentioned the monumental contributions Jews had made to the United States. By contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to “Muslims” six times and to “Islam” twice; he stated that “American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country”; and he praised “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings … a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.”


Obama Criticizes Israeli Settlements Yet Again

  • On November 9, 2010, The New York Times issued the following report regarding the increasingly strained relations between the U.S. and Israel: “President Obama’s criticism of new Israeli housing plans for East Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s even sharper retort, have thrown the Middle East peace talks into jeopardy, with the dispute over Jewish settlements looming as a seemingly insuperable hurdle.... [T]he brusque exchange between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu reflected again the gulf between Israel and the United States over settlements.... When asked about Israel’s plans for 1,000 housing units [in] a contested part of East Jerusalem, Mr. Obama said, 'This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.' ... A few hours later, Mr. Netanyahu’s office responded with a statement, saying that 'Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.'”


Sabotaging Israel's Relations with Egypt

  • In 2011 the Obama administration supported the Egyptian revolution that overthrew Egypt's longtime president (and U.S. ally) Hosni Mubarak. In June 2012, the high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi won the first free presidential election in Egyptian history. After being sworn into office on June 30, he announced that Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel would eventually have to be “revise[d].”


Obama Expresses His Belief that the Palestinians Sincerely Want Peace with Israel

  • In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders, President Obama contended—against all historical evidence—that “Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement.” Meanwhile, he asked his Jewish interlocutors to “speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace … Israelis think this peace process is overrated.”


Obama Calls for an Arab-Israeli Land Swap Based on Pre-1967 Borders

  • On May 19, 2011—just a few hours before Prime Minister Netanyahu flew from Israel to Washington—President Obama delivered his “Arab Spring” speech at the State Department. After saying that “Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist,” he called for the establishment of a Palestinian state—even though neither Hamas nor Fatah had ever acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. Nor did Obama make such acknowledgment a precondition of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Obama also urged Israel to understand that it would never be able to achieve genuine peace if it persisted in seeking “permanent occupation.”
  • In issuing his call for the existence of “two states,” Obama said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He was referring to the borders that had existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. In that war, Israel defeated the armies of three Arab nations (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) that were massing on Israel's borders and preparing to launch a war of annihilation against the Jewish state.
  • In response to Obama's speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders would leave the Jewish state “indefensible.” “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence,” the Israeli leader said.


Obama Avoids Mentioning Terrorism Directed against Israel

  • In early September 2011, the Obama administration issued talking points for the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In those talking points, the administration referred to terrorism's many victims around the world, “whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.” Conspicuously absent was any mention of the many Israeli cities that had been hit by Islamic terrorists innumerable times.


More Criticism of
Israeli Housing Construction

  • On November 2, 2011, the Obama administration sharply criticized Israel’s decision to accelerate construction of Israeli housing in various communities in and around Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank. The apartments that Prime Minister Netanyahu sought to build would not be on Palestinian land, but rather in suburbs or even neighborhoods of Jerusalem, none of which were on the agenda for land swaps in a peace agreement.


Obama Administration Demands that Israel Send Aid to the Palestinian Authority

  • A State Department spokesperson chastised Prime Minister Netanyahu for Israel’s temporary suspension of the transfer of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Israel scholar David Meir-Levi placed this in context: “Dozens of Arab terrorist organizations ... unabashedly proclaim their intentions to destroy Israel, a close, loyal and strong ally of America. In the context of that commitment to Israel’s destruction, they also emphasize their intention to exile or murder all of Israel’s Jews.... The endless Arab diatribe of destruction and relentless rhetoric of annihilation … have gone on unimpeded and unabashed, broadcast throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world since before the creation of the State of Israel. And Arab deeds have matched their words for almost seventy-five years, with equally relentless terrorism punctuated by full-scale wars when Arab leaders thought they would easily win.... On the other hand, every action by Israel to seek a peaceful resolution, thirty one attempts since 1937, has been rebuffed by the Arab side with war or terrorism or vociferous threats of the same....”


Obama Is Caught Deriding Israeli PM Netanyahu on a Live Microphone

  • In November 3, 2011, President Obama conducted what he thought was a private conversation about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the aftermath of a G20 summit. However, the lapel microphones which the two men were wearing from their earlier press conference had not been turned off. What ensued was a major public embarrassment after both Obama and Sarkozy disparaged Netanyahu. In the exchange, Sarkozy told Obama: “I cannot stand him [Netanyahu]. He is a liar.” Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”


Obama Administration Leaks Undermine Israel's Ability to Strike Iranian Nuclear Facilities

  • In March 2012, Foreign Policy magazine reported that “several high-level sources” in the Obama administration had gone public with information regarding Israel's secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes would be able to refuel on their way to or from an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Those Obama sources revealed this information because the administration feared “the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran” and thus sought to undermine such a measure. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell puts it, “This leak was one of the historic and unconscionable betrayals of an ally whose very existence is threatened.”


Obama Overrides Congress to Fund the Palestinian Authority

  • In April 2012, President Obama decided to waive the Palestinian Accountability Act's freeze on U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA). That freeze had been imposed after PA president Mahmoud Abbas attempted, in September 2011, to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood—in violation of the PA’s treaty commitments. This move by Obama would provide $192 million to the PA. Wrote journalist Andrew McCarthy: “In the real world, the very immoderate PA has reneged on all its commitments. In addition to violating its obligations by unilaterally declaring statehood, the PA has also agreed to form a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The PA continues to endorse terrorism against Israel as 'resistance.' Moreover, the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist.”


Obama Administration Implies that Jerusalem Is Not Part of Israel

  • In May 2011, the Obama State Department issued a press release declaring that its No. 2 official, James Steinberg, would be visiting “Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank”—thereby implying that Jerusalem was not part of Israel.


State Department Official Refuses to Identify Jerusalem As the Undisputed Capital of Israel

  • In June 2012, Obama State Department official Victoria Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem, which had been the capital of Israel since 1967, was even a part of Israel. When asked whether it was “the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel,” she replied: “You know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed …. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.”
  • A follow-up question was: “Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel …? Nuland replied: “We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.”


White House Spokesman Jay Carney Refuses to Identify Jerusalem As the Undisputed Capital of Israel

  • At a July 26, 2012 press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney likewise refused to state directly which city is the capital of Israel. In response to a female reporter's question asking whether the Obama administration considered Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to be Israel’s capital, Carney replied, haltingly: “I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed.” The reporter then repeated, “What’s the capital?” Carney responded, “You know our position.” The exchange grew more tense when World Net Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving, who was also in attendance, interjected: “She doesn’t know, that’s why she asked … she does not know, she just said she doesn’t know—I don’t know! ... Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? ... Could you just give us an answer ...?” Carney, however, would not elaborate any further. “You know the answer ... Our position hasn’t changed,” he repeated again.


Pro-Israel Language is Removed from the Democratic Party Platform


In September 2012, it was learned that several pro-Israel sections that were part of previous Democratic Party platforms, had been removed from the 2012 platform. For example:

  • The 2012 platform made no mention of Jerusalem, whereas the 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms had declared “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel … It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” The revised platform was consistent with the Obama administration’s controversial refusal to openly recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  • Whereas the 2004 and 2008 platforms had asserted that the creation of a Palestinian state “should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel,” the 2012 platform was silent on the matter.
  • The 2008 platform had declared that “the United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.” The 2012 platform, by contrast, contained no mention of Hamas.
  • Previous Democratic Party platforms also contained promises to help Israel maintain its “qualitative military edge” in the region. The 2012 platform said only that “the administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region,” but made no pledge to continue doing so in the future.
  • Following much public criticism of the foregoing omissions, Democratic Party delegates (at the party's National Convention) amended the platform to restore the reference to Jerusalem—but not the references to the refugee issue, Hamas, or Israel's “military edge.”


Obama Administration Refuses to Draw “Red Line” on Iran; Disappoints Netanyahu

  • In response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that the U.S. would set no deadlines for negotiations with the Iranian government regarding its nuclear ambitions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the following on September 11, 2012: “The world tells Israel: ‘Wait. There’s still time.’ And I say: ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”


Obama Says He Will Not Meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York

  • On September 11, 2012 (as Israel's concern over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities had reached new heights), the White House announced that President Obama would not be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter's visit to New York later in the month for the UN General Assembly session. According to an official in Jerusalem, Netanyahu's office had sent the White House a message stating that the Prime Minister would be willing to travel to the Washington, DC to meet with Obama, so as to accommodate the President's schedule. However, said the official, the White House had rejected the request and had indicated that Obama's schedule would not allow for a meeting. On the same day that Obama stated he would not be meeting with Netanyahu, he announced that he would be appearing on the late-night David Letterman Show the following week. Moreover, on the same day that Obama delivered his speech to the UN General Assembly, he appeared on the television program The View (the episode was recorded the previous day).


Obama Administration Opens Talks with the Muslim Brotherhood

  • In early July 2011, it was announced that the Obama administration had formalized ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing, for the first time, State Department diplomats to deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo, where the international organization is based.


Obama Excludes Israel from Counter-Terrorism Group

  • On September 20, 2012, Deborah Weiss reported the following in the Washington Times:

    “[T]he Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) is the brainchild of the Obama administration and one of its 'signature initiatives' on counterterrorism. Its purported purpose is to increase global cooperation in fighting terrorism worldwide. Yet, despite Israel’s interest in joining the alliance, the GCTF, under the leadership of the Obama administration, has excluded Israel from all participation.... Obama administration officials even have omitted Israel from mention during conference speeches when listing countries affected by terrorism. It’s as though Israel is nonexistent....A glimpse into the forum’s membership might provide insight into the reason for its rejection of Israel. The GCTF … has 29 members, 11 of them also members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) ... [T]he OIC countries are united in their hatred of Israel and share a common vision of a world where Israel does not exist.... Not surprisingly, all member countries support both Hamas and Hezbollah.”


Israeli Knesset Leader Criticizes Obama's “Naive Leadership”

  • After Barack Obama's November 2012 re-election as U.S. President, Likud Party member Danny Danon, deputy speaker of Israel’s Knesset, said the following: “Obama’s victory demonstrates that the state of Israel must take care of its own interests. We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves. Obama has hurt the United States by his naïve leadership in foreign policy, which prefers the Arab world over the Western world, along with Israel. The state of Israel will not capitulate before Obama. ”


Hamas and Syria Step up Attacks against Israel Shortly after Obama's Re-election

  • On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was re-elected as U.S. President. Four days later, Hamas began a new wave of rocket attacks on Israel’s southern cities in a new wave. The day after that, Syria began shelling Israeli positions in the north. And on November 13, the Palestinian Authority announced its plan to make another bid for statehood at the United Nations.


Administration Criticizes Israel's Dealings with Palestinians

  • Speaking at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, DC on December 7, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “... I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.”

    Clinton also criticized Israel’s newly announced plan to build 3,000 new housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank: “In light of today’s announcement, let me reiterate that this administration — like previous administrations — has been very clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace.”

Obama Says Israeli Settlement Policies Have Brought “Near Total Isolation”

  • In January 2013, President Obama stated that Israel's expansion of settlements was driving the Jewish state towards “near-total isolation,” adding: “Israel doesn’t know what its own interests are.”
  • In response to those remarks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “No one decides for the citizens of Israel. I think that President Obama knows that the ones determining Israel’s vital interests are the citizens of Israel, and they will be the ones to choose who will protect those interests in the best possible way.”
  • Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas said the following about Obama's remarks: “Barack Obama said, simply and clearly, what he thinks about Israel's prime minister and where he is leading Israel. These are grave, alarming statements, which are without precedent.”

Obama Alludes to the "Legitimate Frustration" of Palestinians

  • In March 2013, President Obama expressed his personal frustration over the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. According to one source, Obama said: "The only people more frustrated than me [are the] Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza—it’s a legitimate frustration."

Obama Says Palestinians "Deserve a State of Their Own"

  • During his March 2013 visit to Israel, President Obama said: “I’ve been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leadership. We do not consider continued [Israeli] settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace.” He added that the Palestinians deserved an end to Israeli “occupation” and the “daily indignities that come with it.” And he declared that the “Palestinians deserve a state of their own.”


Obama Pressures Israel to Apologize to Turkey

  • Before departing Israel for Jordan on the last leg of his March 2013 trip to the Middle East, President Obama arranged for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to submit to Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's demand for an apology regarding the deaths of eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American citizen resulting from Israel’s interdiction of the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship that was part of an anti-Israel activist flotilla attempting to break Israel’s lawful naval blockade of Gaza in 2010. Israel also agreed to pay several million dollars in compensation to the victims’ families.

    “In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors,” said an Israeli government statement issued following the apology, “Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation.” In reality, the violence was instigated entirely by several dozen Turkish jihadis aboard the Mavi Marmara, who refused to allow Israel to inspect their Gaza-bound cargo.

    Prime Minister Erdogan accepted the Israeli apology on behalf of the Turkish nation. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Netanyahu’s apology, and his offer of compensation and to further ease restrictions along the Gaza border with Israel, satisfied all of Turkey’s demands. Erdogan himself, in a call to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, reportedly delivered the message that Israel had acceded to his conditions.

    But Erdogan did not wait long to draw back from his reciprocal promises to restore normal diplomatic relations and put an end to the legal proceedings against the Israeli soldiers who took part in the 2010 operation (which Ergodan himself helped precipitate) involving the Mavi Mamara. Just a day after receiving Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution. Then, there would be an exchange of ambassadors,” Erdogan said.

    Moreover, Erdogan failed to offer any apology of his own for his recent speech at a United Nations-sponsored Alliance of Civilizations conference in Vienna, where he equated Zionism with fascism and characterized Jews’ quest for their own nation in their historic homeland as a “crime against humanity.” In fact, just days before Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan had declared that he stood by his remarks in Vienna, although he claimed they had been misunderstood.


Secret Negotiations with Iran: Israel Is Outraged

In early November 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had begun softening U.S. sanctions against Iran (vis a vis the latter's nuclear program) soon after the election, five months earlier, of that country's new president, Hassan Rouhani. This move set the stage, in turn, for the United States -- in conjunction with Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany -- to propose a short-term “first step agreement” with Iran at a November meeting in Geneva. The deal, which sought to freeze Iran’s nuclear program for approximately six months in order to create an opportunity for a more comprehensive and lasting bargain to be negotiated, included four key provisions, as outlined by the London Telegraph:

1) Iran would stop enriching uranium to the 20 per cent level that is close to weapons-grade – and turn its existing stockpile of this material into harmless oxide.

2) Iran would continue enrichment to the 3.5 per cent purity needed for nuclear power stations – but agree to limit the number of centrifuges being used for this purpose. There would, however, be no requirement to remove or disable any other centrifuges.


3) Iran would agree not to activate its plutonium reactor at Arak, which could provide another route to a nuclear weapons capability, during the six-month period. Iran may, however, continue working on the facility.


4) Iran would agree not to use its more advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which can enrich uranium between three and five times faster than the older model.

“In return,” said the Telegraph, “America would ease economic sanctions, possibly by releasing some Iranian foreign exchange reserves currently held in frozen accounts. In addition, some restrictions affecting Iran’s petrochemical, motor and precious metals industries could be relaxed.”

On November 8, 2013, the Israeli government, which the Obama administration had not informed of the negotiations, was stunned to learn of the seemingly imminent deal with Iran. According to The DailyBeast.com, news of the agreement led to the canceling of a joint media appearance between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “and prompted, instead, a bitter exchange between them before Kerry headed off to the Swiss city” to take part in the multinational talks.

One Israeli official was quoted saying that “the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering.... Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, outraged at the prospect of this agreement with Iran, said: "I understand that the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva, as well they should be, because they got everything, and paid nothing, they wanted. They wanted relief from sanctions after years of a gruelling sanctions regime.” Added Netanyhau:

“The deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal--a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community."

"Israel utterly rejects it [the deal]," Netanyahu emphasized, "and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly.... Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people."

When Iran ultimately broke off negotiations on November 10, Netanyahu’s office issued a press release stating:

"Over the weekend I spoke with President Obama, with [Russian] President Putin, with [French] President Hollande, with [German] Chancellor Merkel and with British Prime Minister Cameron. I told them that according to all the information reaching Israel, the impending deal is bad and dangerous.

"It is not only dangerous to us; it is dangerous for them, too. It is dangerous for the peace of the world because in one fell swoop it lowers the pressure of the sanctions which took years to build, and conversely, Iran essentially preserves its nuclear uranium enrichment capabilities as well as the ability to advance on the plutonium enrichment path....

"I asked all the leaders what the rush is. And I suggested that they wait…. It is good that this was ultimately the choice that was made but I am not fooling myself—there is a strong desire to strike a deal…."

A number of days later, the U.S.—along with Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany—resumed negotiations with Iran. And on November 24th an interim agreement was reached,  wherein Iran agreed that for six months it would:

  • place a 5% ceiling on its uranium enrichment;
  • reduce to 7,000 kilograms the amount of already-enriched uranium in its possession;
  • allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct daily inspections of acknowledged enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordo; and
  • suspend all work on its unfinished plutonium plant in Arak.

In exchange, the U.S. and its bargaining partners assured Iran that for the same six-month period:

  • the United Nations and the European Union would impose no new sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program, and would cease efforts to further limit  Iran’s oil exports;
  • sanctions on insurance services for transport to Iran would be suspended, along with additional restrictions on the sale of gold and other valuables;
  • a new “financial channel” would permit Iran to access banking services for “humanitarian commerce”—e.g., the import of food, pharmaceuticals, and medical treatments;
  • some U.S. sanctions would be suspended; and
  • Washington would allow the sale of some spare parts for Iran’s Boeing transport aircraft.

But the agreement gave Russia, a staunch ally of Iran, the right to oversee whatever future actions the Western powers might wish to take regarding Iran. Moreover, the deal kept sensitive sites such as the Iranian military base at Parchin, where researchers were busy weaponizing enriched uranium, off-limits to inpectors. And the same immunity from inspections would apply also to any new nuclear sites that Iran might open up subsequent to the signing of the accord.

By John Kerry's telling: “The deal is the beginning and first step. It leads us into the negotiation—so that we guarantee that while we are negotiating for the dismantling, while we are negotiating for the tougher positions, they will not grow their program and their capacity to threaten Israel. Israel will actually gain a larger breathing space in terms of the breakout capacity of Iran. It’s just clear.”

President Obama was equally optimistic, saying the agreement would ensure that “Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon”—an assertion that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described as “a funny joke.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was deeply disturbed by news of the agreement with Iran. The day after the deal had been finalized, he said: “What was agreed last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”

Netanyahu lamented that for the first time, the world's leading powers had agreed to permit uranium enrichment in Iran while suspending effective sanctions -- in exchange for merely “cosmetic Iranian concessions that are possible to do away with in a matter of weeks.” Declaring, further, that “Iran is committed to Israel’s destruction,” Netanyahu emphasized that his country “has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat,” and thus “is not bound by this agreement.” “It becomes [increasingly] clear,” he added, “how bad and dangerous the agreement is to the world, the region and Israel.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who likewise condemned the accord, said: “We are in a new reality that is different from yesterday, and it requires us to reevaluate the situation with good judgment, responsibly and with determination. We will do what we must and will not hesitate for a minute—and there is no need to add another word.”

Yet another Israeli official stated that his government was particulary upset by the fact that the U.S. had not even informed Israel that the negotiations were taking place.

Obama Tells Israel to Acept Mahmoud Abbas As Peace Partner

In a February 2014 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama warned that if Israel and President Netanyahu failed to “make peace” soon with the Palestinians, Israel would be rendered “more isolated internationally.”

Turning a blind eye to every existing piece of polling data about the Palestinians' opinions regarding Israel's right to exist, Obama said: “The Palestinians would still prefer peace. They would still prefer a country of their own that allows them to find a job, send their kids to school, travel overseas, go back and forth to work without feeling as if they are restricted or constrained as a people. And they recognize that Israel is not going anywhere.... The voices for peace within the Palestinian community will be stronger with a framework agreement.”

With regard to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama said: “I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue.... You’ve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns — for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake.”

Suggested that Netanyahu should make a deal as soon as possible, even if he found it emotionally difficult to do, Obama said: “One of the things my mom always used to tell me and I didn’t always observe, but as I get older I agree with — is if there’s something you know you have to do, even if it’s difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting isn’t going to help. When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”

Added Obama: “if he [Netanyahu] does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

But in fact, there was no reason to believe that Abbas actually wanted peace. He had consistently characterized Palestinian terrorists as heroes; he continued to spend fortunes on paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists, including many Hamas members who had murdered civilians after peace negotiations began; and he controlled only the West Bank (not the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip), and thus could not promise that Gaza would abide by whatever agreements he himself might negotiate. And, as political analyst John Podhoretz subsequently noted: "In 2008, offered a peace deal by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that involved Abbas actually drawing a new West Bank map giving the Palestinians something between 92 and 95 percent of the territory, Abbas basically fled the table and didn’t return." 

Netanyahu, for his part, subsequently addressed the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the remarks Obama had made:

"I mean, we [Israel] vacated cities in Judea and Samaria. We left entirely Gaza. We’ve not only frozen settlements, we’ve uprooted entire settlements. We’ve released hundreds of terrorist prisoners, including dozens in recent months. And when you look at what we got in return, it’s been scores of suicide bombings, thousands of rockets on our cities fired from the areas we vacated, and just incessant Palestinian incitement against Israel. So Israel has been doing its part, and I regret to say that the Palestinians haven’t.

"Now, I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but it’s the truth. And the people of Israel know that it’s the truth because they’ve been living it. What they want is peace. What we all want fervently is peace. Not a piece a paper — although that, too — but a real peace; a peace that is anchored in mutual recognition of two nation states that recognize and respect one another, and solid security arrangements on the ground.

"... The Palestinians expect us to recognize a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, a nation state for the Palestinian people. I think it’s about time they recognize a nation state for the Jewish people. We’ve only been there for 4,000 years."


Obama Administration Tells Israel to Stop Assassinating Iranian Nuclear Scientists and Focus on the Palestine Peace Process

On March 3, 2014, the Associated Press reported:

U.S. officials have reportedly told Israel to stop killing off Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel's Moussad spy agency has supposedly taken out [mostly with car bombs] at least five top Iranian nuclear experts in an attempt to slow the country’s nuclear program and continues to do so despite recent agreements reached to end the country’s nuclear ambitions....

Israel has never publicly acknowledged the program,... but it was designed to slow the rogue nation’s nuclear progress, as well as "deter trained and educated Iranians from joining their country's nuclear program." ...

An unidentified U.S. official disclosed the program to CBS while claiming the Obama administration is leaning on its Middle Eastern ally to stop the targeted killings and wait for the current deal to disarm to play out.

Obama Administration Says Palestinians Do Not Need to Commit to Recognizing Israel's Legitimate Existence

On March 8, 2014, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, stated in an interview with the Al-Quds newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Says Israel Cannot Depend on U.S., Which Projects "Weakness"

On March 18, 2014, Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon cited the recent crisis in Ukraine (where the Russian military had seized control of Crimea) as an example of the Obama administration "showing weakness." He also said, "We had thought it would be the United States that would lead the campaign against Iran" and its nuclear program. But Yaalon lamented that although "people know Iran cheats," the United States and other nations had elected to negotiate with Tehran. "Therefore, on this matter, we have to behave as though we have nobody to look out for us but ourselves," Yaalon said.

The Obama Administration Recognizes the Palestinians' New "Unity Government" Uniting Fatah and Hamas

On June 2, 2014, the Palestinians formed a new “government of national unity” led by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and backed by Hamas. The Washington Post described the move, which effectively united Fatah and Hamas, as “a significant step toward ending a seven-year feud between the Palestinian political factions that separately control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

Within five hours of the Palestinians' announcement that a new unity government had been established, the U.S. State Department declared its willingness to work with it. This contradicted Obama's assertion during his 2008 presidential run, when he called Hamas a “terrorist organization” and said that “we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements.” Israel's reaction to the Obama administration's new position was one of bitterness and anger:

  • Public radio reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt “betrayed and deceived” by the U.S., particularly in light of the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry had promised him that Washington would not recognize the new government immediately.
  • A senior political official quoted by the Israel Hayom freesheet, widely regarded as Prime Minister Netanyahu's mouthpiece, stated that the American move was “like a knife in the back.”
  • Netanyahu himself then said: “I’m deeply troubled by the announcement that the United States will work with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas.... All those who genuinely seek peace must reject President Abbas’ embrace of Hamas, and most especially, I think the United States must make it absolutely clear to the Palestinian president that his pact with Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks Israel’s liquidation, is simply unacceptable.”
  • The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, said that Israel was “deeply disappointed” that America had decided to recognize a government that legitimized Hamas, an organization “committed to our [Israel's] destruction.” “With suits in the front office and terrorists in the back office, it should not be business as usual,” said Dermer.
  • Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said: “I have to say I do not understand this American announcement. You cannot present it as a Hamas government internally, then present it publicly as a government of technocrats. If these [ministers] are people who identify with Hamas, Hamas identifies with them and appointed them, then they are representatives of Hamas. This is a Hamas government, and Hamas is a terror organization.”
  • Israeli Communications Minister Gilad Erdan said: “Unfortunately, American naivety has broken all records. Collaborating with Hamas, which is defined as a terror organization in the United States, is simply unthinkable. U.S. capitulation to Palestinian tactics badly damages the chance of ever returning to negotiations and will cause Israel to take unilateral steps to defend its citizens from the government of terror which Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has set up.”

Obama Official Makes Speech Critical of Israel

On July 9, 2014 in Tel Aviv, Philip Gordon -- the White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region -- delivered the keynote address at the Haaretz Conference on Peace—a speech described by The Times of Israel as “a blistering attack on Israeli foreign policy.” Earlier that day, and throughout the preceding several days as well, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists had been busy launching hundreds of rockets from Gaza into a number of Israeli cities—including Tel Aviv—setting off air-raid sirens and driving millions of residents into bomb shelters.

Against this backdrop, Gordon appealed to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises necessary for a permanent peace agreement. He stated, for example, that Israel's government in Jerusalem “should not take for granted” the “opportunity” it had to negotiate such a treaty with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, “who has shown time and again that he is committed to nonviolence and coexistence with Israel.” “While walls and missile defense systems can help protect against some threats,” Gordon expanded, “true safety for both sides will only come with a comprehensive negotiated settlement” resulting in the creation of “two states” with “permanent” borders “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Echoing Secretary of State John Kerry's and President Obama's previously articulated assertions that Israel would find itself increasingly isolated by the international community if it failed to make peace with the Palestinians, Gordon drew a moral equivalence between the two warring parties: “[W]e have no interest in a blame game. The unfortunate reality is that neither side prepared their publics or proved ready to make the difficult decisions required for an agreement. And trust has been eroded on both sides. Until it is restored, neither side will likely be ready to take risks for peace, even if they live with the dire consequences that resolve from its absence.” “[T]here has clearly been far too much recrimination and some reprehensible examples of racism on both sides,” Gordon added.

Moreover, Gordon lectured Israel on its duty to “confront” the “undeniable reality” that “it cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely”; that “doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability”; and that such a course of action “will embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israel’s democratic fabric, and feed mutual dehumanization.”

Building upon that theme, Gordon reiterated the Obama administration's position that Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank were “illegitimate and an impediment to progress on peace negotiations.” “Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland,” he explained, “Palestinians have a right to be a sovereign, free, and secure people in their own land” as well, and to thereby “reach their full potential.”

Gordon also said that the U.S., as an ally of Israel, had some basic, yet difficult, questions for the Jewish state: “How will Israel remain democratic and Jewish if it attempts to govern the millions of Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank? How will it have peace if it’s unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security and dignity? How will we prevent other states from supporting Palestinian efforts in international bodies, if Israel is not seen as committed to peace?”

Obama Urges Israeli Restraint Against Hamas Terrorists

On July 20, 2014 -- while Israel was in the midst of a miltary operation designed to destroy the massive network of underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels that Hamas had created throughout Gaza -- President Obama called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a statement from the White House, Obama “reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself [but] also raised serious concern about the growing number of casualties, including increasing Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and the loss of Israeli soldiers.”

Obama Administration Condemns Israel's Shelling of a UN School

On July 30, 2014 -- with Israel still conducting its anti-terror campaugn in Gaza -- the Obama administration condemned Israel's deadly shelling (killing 17 people) of a United Nations school in Gaza which was sheltering displaced Palestinians. "We are extremely concerned that thousands of internally displaced Palestinians who have been called on by the Israeli military to evacuate their homes are not safe in UN designated shelters in Gaza," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council. She also condemned "those responsible for hiding weapons in the United Nations facilities in Gaza" — a nod to Israel's contention that Hamas was storing arms in those facilities.

On July 31, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said:

“The Israeli military can and should do more to protect the lives of those innocent civilians. There is a difference in approach between what Hamas is perpetrating on the Israeli people and what Israel is doing to defend their country. But the shelling of a U.N. facility that is housing innocent civilian who are fleeting violence is totally unacceptable and totally indefensible. It is clear that we need our allies in Israel to do more to live up to to the high standards that they have set for themselves....

“We have steadfastly defended Israel’s right to take the actions that they feel necessary to protect their people and to defend their turf. The steps that they have taken have also been taken with the standards that they put in place to protect the lives of innocent civilians. That stands in pretty stark contrast to the approach adopted by Hamas that is actually using their military might to target innocent Israeli civilians.

“The observation I think many across the globe have made is despite those high standards, there are innocent Palestinian lives being lost. What we are simply asking the Israelis to do, in fact urging the Israelis to do, is to do more to live up to the standards that they have set for their own military operations to protect the lives of innocent civilians.”


Obama Administration Condemns Israel's Shelling of Another UN School

In early August 2014, after 10 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli shelling outside a United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school in Rafah, wherein some 3,000 displaced persons were being sheltered, the Obama administration called the incident “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible.” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki demanded that Israel do “more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties.” Added Psaki: “The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which at least 10 more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed.” Addressing the Israeli military's assertion that it was responding to mortar bombs that had been fired from near the school by Palestinians, Psaki said: “The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”

Netanyahu Tells U.S. Not to "Second-Guess" Him on Hamas

Also in early August 2014, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advised the Obama administration "not to ever second guess me again" on the matter of dealing with Hamas.

State Department Says Israel Must "Do More" to Avoid Civilian Casualties

On August 4, 2014, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that there was "more that Israel can do to hold themselves to their own standards" in terms of not harming civilians in the battle against Hamas. "Every day," she explained, "the world is watching as innocent civilians are killed, as children are having shrapnel pulled out of their back. I think we can all look to make an evaluation that there's more that can be done."

Obama Withholds Weapons Shipments to Israel

In August 2014 -- in the midst of an Israeli war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip -- President Obama issued a directive stipulating that any Israeli request for weapons, however large or small that request might be, must not be fulfilled without his personal prior approval. In accordance with that order, Obama canceled at least two arms shipments to Israel that the Pentagon had previously approved (in July), and he suspended the transfer of AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles to the Israeli Air Force. One U.S. official stated: “It is unprecedented that the president approve every item in a military-to-military relationship, but this is exactly what has been decided.” “The president felt that his efforts to achieve a ceasefire was being undermined by U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel,” said a White House official. “Now, nothing moves without his approval, and that means everything will be slowed down.”

A Wall Street Journal analysis said: “Today, many administration officials say the Gaza conflict — the third between Israel and Hamas in under six years — has persuaded them that Mr. Netanyahu and his national security team are both reckless and untrustworthy. The White House and State Department have sought to regain greater control over U.S.-Israeli policy.”

Obama Says Israel Must "Find a Way" to "Recognize" the "Legitimate Claims" of the Palestinians

In an August 2014, interview with New York Times Op-Ed columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama said: "[B]ecause Israel is so capable militarily,I don’t worry about Israel’s survival.... I think the question really is how does Israel survive? And how can you create a State of Israel that maintains its democratic and civic traditions? How can you preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those who founded Israel? And, in order to do that, it has consistently been my belief that you [meaning Israel] have to find a way to live side by side in peace with Palestinians.... You [meaning Israel] have to recognize that they have legitimate claims, and this is their land and neighborhood as well.”

OBAMA THE DIVIDER
(Return to Table of Contents)

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to end the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism,” and to help Americans “rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.” He then proceeded to become the most divisive president in American history. Not only has he emphasized the need to enact his agendas swiftly and with a great sense of urgency, but he has depicted his political opponents as essentially obstructionists whose ideological absolutism is at odds with the common good. During his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, for instance, the newly re-elected Obama said: “For now, decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

This section documents how Obama has based both his activist and political careers on fomenting group-based resentments designed to energize his political base. “Hope and Change” has become, in practice, “Divide and Conquer.” Obama's propensity to pit populations and “interests” against each other is an outgrowth of the socialist worldview that sees all human interactions in terms of “class struggles.” The divisions that Obama seeks to promote, as the following material shows, are not only those of class, but also of race, ethnicity, and sex.


DIVIDING AMERICANS BY CLASS
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama the Chicago Community Organizer

  • From the mid- to late 1980s, Barack Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation of what community organizers do: “For 'community organizers' ... racial resentments are a stock in trade.... What [they] organiz[e] are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.”
  • The godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, put it this way: “[The community organizer] must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.... [His function is] to agitate to the point of conflict.... Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”


Obama's Ti
es to Saul Alinsky's Tactics for Fomenting Class Resentments

  • Three of Barack Obama's mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky. In the Alinsky model, the goal is to foment, in a gradual and persistent manner, enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark social upheaval, for which Obama uses the term “transformation.” Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method for several years.


Obama's Introduction to ACORN and Project Vote, Groups That Pit the Poor and Nonwhite Minorities Against the Rest of Society

  • In the early to mid-1990s, Obama worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. In 2003, Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern wrote that ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact “promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborated, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.”


Obama Calls for Massive Government Spending Hikes on Education, and the Enactment of “Living Wage” Laws

  • In an October 28, 1994 NPR interview, Obama said it would be “just plain stupid”—and would reflect “a moral deficit”—for anyone to oppose making a taxpayer-funded “investment” in the expansion of government programs for children and low-income workers: “Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children … a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work ...”


Obama Emphasizes Inter-Group Conflict

  • In a 1995 interview, Obama said: “[M]any of the problems that Africa faces, whether it's poverty or political suppression or ethnic conflict is just as prominent there and can't all be blamed on the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or Los Angeles or all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interest of power or greed or resources or what have you.”


Obama Scapegoats the “Top 5 Percent”

  • In a December 28, 1995 interview published in the Hyde Park Citizen newspaper, Obama explained his views on income inequality in the United States: “In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.”
  • In that same interview, Obama said that his perspective on the “top 5%” had been shaped by his experiences abroad: “It's about power. My travels made me sensitive to the plight of those without power and the issues of class and inequalities as it relates to wealth and power. Anytime you have been overseas in these so-called third world countries, one thing you see is the vast disparity of wealth of those who are part of power structure and those outside of it.”


Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama's Entry into Politics

  • In the mid-1990s, Obama entered electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. He launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help him make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and '70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group that aspired to transform the U.S. into a Communist country.


Obama Views the Poor As a Potential “Voting Bloc”


At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Barack Obama stated that the “working poor” on welfare constituted a political voting bloc that could be harnessed to the advantage of Democrats. Specifically, he said that:

  • “To the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their [the working poor's] lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”
  • The “one good thing that comes out of [the welfare-reform bill of 1996] is that it essentially desegregates the welfare population,” merging urban blacks with “the working poor, which are the other people.”
  • Such a coalition becomes “one batch of folks ... that is increasingly a majority population” whose policy needs would grow to encompass health care, job training, education, and a system where government would “provide effective child care.”


“Rich People Are All for Nonviolence.... They Want to Make Sure Folks Don't Take Their Stuff”

  • On January 21, 2002—Martin Luther King Day—then-Illinois state senator Obama appeared at a Chicago church and delivered an emotionally charged speech drenched in the rhetoric of class warfare. He said: “The philosophy of nonviolence only makes sense if the powerful can be made to recognize themselves in the powerless. It only makes sense if the powerless can be made to recognize themselves in the powerful.... I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure folks don’t take their stuff.”


Obama Equates Conservatism with Greed, and Free Markets with “Social Darwinism”

  • In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described conservatism as a philosophy that promises “to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.” “In Washington,” said Obama, “they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or her self. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity.”


“Tax Breaks to Paris Hilton Instead of Providing Child Care and Education”

  • Blacks in the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina were poor, Obama charged, because of the Bush administration’s “decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of providing child care and education.”


The “Rich” Should Pay More Taxes

  • During a June 28, 2007 primary debate at Howard University, candidate Obama was asked, “Do you agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes?” He replied, “There’s no doubt that the tax system has been skewed. And the Bush tax cuts—people didn’t need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”


Calling for a Capital Gains Tax Hike

  • In an April 2008 Democratic primary debate, Obama was asked, by journalist Charlie Gibson, about his proposal to nearly double the capital gains tax (from 15 percent to 28 percent). Said Gibson: “In each instance when the rate dropped [in the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the [capital gains] tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” Obama replied that he wished to raise the tax “for purposes of fairness.... [T]hose who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”


Higher Taxes for the Wealthy

  • In a September 2008 Fox News Channel interview, Obama pledged to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000: “Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax…. If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, 'I'm going to pay a little bit more'? That is neighborliness.”


Telling “Joe the Plumber” about “Spreading t
he Wealth Around”

  • At an October 2008 campaign appearance in Ohio, Obama was approached by a man named Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”). Obama said that a tax increase on businesses like Wurzelbacher's was justified because it would enable the government to give tax breaks to people earning considerably less than $250,000. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” said Obama.


Fat-Cat Bankers”

  • During a December 2009 interview broadcast on CBS' 60 Minutes, Obama said: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street.”


At Some Point, You've Made Enough Money”

  • On April 28, 2010, President Obama was in Illinois making a speech about a proposed Wall Street reform bill. He criticized Wall Street lobbyists for trying to dilute the bill's most stringent provisions, saying: “We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or you're providing a good service.”


Obama Opposes Tax Cuts for Top Earners

  • In September 2010, Obama strongly reiterated his opposition to extending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, depicting such a measure as an outgrowth of “the same philosophy that led to this [fiscal] mess in the first place.”


The “Rich” Should Pay More Taxes

  • In an April 13, 2011 speech on the topic of debt reduction, President Obama said: “In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. That's who needs to pay less taxes?... There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”
  • Obama's contention that tax hikes on the wealthy would have any meaningful effect on the U.S. budget is unfounded. As of 2012, even if the IRS were to take, from every high earner, fully 100% of whatever income they earned in excess of $1 million, the government's take would be just $616 billion—not even half of the country's annual deficit. In other words, the total national debt would continue to spiral out of control. Further, the proposal itself is absurd, since the wealthy would no longer continue to work or invest their money if their income were to be taxed at a 100% rate.


Despite His Rhetoric against “Greed,” Obama Rewards Big Donors with Jobs, Stimulus Money, and Government Contracts

On June 15, 2011, the Center for Public Integrity reported:

  • “More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish 'special interests' from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events.... These 'bundlers' raised at least $50,000 and sometimes more than $500,000 in campaign donations for Obama’s campaign.... As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted 'the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,' who he said had 'turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.'”
  • All told, as of June 2011, some 184 of 556 (33%) Obama bundlers or their spouses had joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers.
  • Of those bundlers who collected more than $500,000 for Obama, fully 80% had taken “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House.
  • Of the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers, 14 had raised more than $500,000 for Obama.
  • Campaign bundlers and their family members accounted for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them had raised at least $200,000 for Obama.
  • At least 19 bundlers had ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote the President's agendas in such fields as “clean energy” and telecommunications. One of these was the Oklahoma billionaire investor George Kaiser, who was a big financial backer of Solyndra, the now-defunct Silicon Valley solar plant that in March 2009 won a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

Obama Says the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement Reflects Americans' Frustrations

  • At an October 6, 2011 press conference, President Obama congratulated the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street activists for “express[ing] the frustrations that the American people feel … about how our financial system works”; for reminding him “what we are still fighting for”; for “inspir[ing]” him; and for being “the reason why I ran for this office in the first place.”


Obama Calls for Tax Hikes on “Millionaires,” “Billionaires,” and “Corporate Jet Owners”

On June 29, 2011, President Obama called on Republicans to drop their opposition to tax increases for those earning $250,000 or more, saying that because “everybody else” was sacrificing their “sacred cows” for deficit reduction, GOP lawmakers should be willing to follow suit. He made six mentions of eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, suggesting that insufficient taxes on such jets had the effect of depriving student-loan funds or food-safety funds of their needed revenues. For example:

  • “Ask Republican constituents if they're willing to compromise their kids' safety so some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break.”
  • “The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owner.”
  • “I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.” (In fact, Obama's plan proposed an end to tax breaks for anyone earning $250,000 or more.)
  • As The Daily Caller subsequently pointed out, eliminating tax breaks for corporate jet owners would result in a mere $3 billion in new tax revenues over a ten-year period. The U.S. budget deficit for 2011 alone was $1.3 trillion. Projected over a decade, that annual figure would result, cumulatively, in $13 trillion of new debt. Thus the $3 billion in revenues would decrease the budget deficit for that period by just one-fortieth of 1%. In other words, Obama's proposal was not a serious attempt to address the deficit. It was intended solely to stir class resentments against wealthy people who were presumably exploiting everyone else.


Obama Again Calls for Tax Hikes on High Earners

  • At a July 11, 2011 press conference, President Obama said: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”


Obama Denounces the Wealthy, the “Greed” of Bankers, “Inequality,” and Free Markets


On December 6, 2011, President Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, where he said:

  • “Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success.”
  • “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments—wealthier than ever before, [but] everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't.”
  • The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by “the breathtaking greed” of “banks and investors” as well as “irresponsibility all across the system.”
  • “'You're on your own' economics … results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.”
  • “The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more,” and “this kind of inequality—a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression—hurts us all.”
  • There will be insufficient money to fund “the investments we need in things like education” if we “keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country.”
  • “Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families.”
  • “Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1% ... the height of unfairness.”


Obama Again Denounces Inequality, the Wealthy, and Tax Breaks

In an April 3, 2012 speech at an Associated Press luncheon, President Obama said:

  • “Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by?”
  • “What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else...”
  • “Research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”
  • “Meanwhile, these [Republicans'] proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year.”
  • “We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else.”
  • “At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003.  We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier—we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year.  But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.”
  • “You'd think they'd [Republicans] say, you know what, maybe … just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts.”
  • “If we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford.”
  • “At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years.... That is not fair. It is not right.”


“You Didn't Build That”:
Obama Disparages Entrepreneurs and Praises Government

  • On July 13, 2012, Obama minimized the achievements of entrepreneurs, and emphasized the notion that government was the key to a thriving economy:

    “Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, 'well, it must be because I was just so smart.' There are a lot of smart people out there. 'It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.' Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.... Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”


Obama Calls for “An America in Which Prosperity Is Shared”

  • On August 12, 2012, Obama asked: “Do we go forward toward a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared, or do we go backward to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place? I believe we have to go forward.”


“Everybody's Getting a Fair Share”

  • During the closing statement of his October 3, 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said that he sought to create an America where “everybody's getting a fair shot, and everybody's getting a fair share.” He then quickly corrected himself: “everybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules.”


Obama Gives an Indication That Taxes Will Ultimately Be Raised on most Americans, Not Just the Wealthy (though the latter will be targeted first)

  •  On December 6, 2012, Obama, calling for a tax hike on the top 2% of earners, said: "We’re going to have to strengthen our entitlement programs so that they’re there for future generations. Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice, who are in the best position to do a little bit more to step up."


“A
Shrinking Few Do Very Well and a Growing Many Barely Make It”

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama emphasized his belief that capitalist America had become a place of widespread inequity and injustice: “[O]ur country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it”; “We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”


Obama Says Republicans Only Care About Cutting Taxes for the Rich

  • In February 2013, President Obama told an audience of black broadcasters: "My sense is that their [Republicans'] basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations ... That's the thing that binds their party together at this point."


Obama's Weekly Address Emphasizes Class Warfare

During his weekly address to the American people on February 23, 2013, Obama addressed the looming "sequestration" budget cuts that were scheduled to take effect in a few days:

  • He said it was important to "close wasteful tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected."
  • "... Republicans in Congress have decided that instead of compromising—instead of asking anything of the wealthiest Americans—they would rather let these [budget] cuts fall squarely on the middle class."
  • "Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the border patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies? Are they seriously prepared to inflict more pain on the middle class because they refuse to ask anything more of those at the very top?
  • "[M]y plan [has] got tough cuts, tough reforms, and asks more of the wealthiest Americans."


Obama Say "The Wealthiest and Most Powerful" Are Not Paying Enough in Taxes

  • On February 28, 2013, Obama stated that America cannot "just cut our way to prosperity" while "asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful."

Obama Seeks to Cap Americans' Tax-Sheltered Retirement Savings

  • In April 2013, President Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal 2014. This budget proposed, for the first time ever, to cap the amount of money Americans could save in tax-sheltered 401K retirement plans -- because some people were accumulating "substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving." Specifically, the president sought to "limit an individual's total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013."

Obama Tells College Grads that the Traditional U.S. Economic System Is Rigged Against Them

  • In his speech at Ohio State University's 2013 Commencement, Obama urged the graduates to "reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper," and where the "well-connected" get "special treatment that you don't get."


"Winner-Take-All Economy" and "Growing Inequality"

On July 24, 2013, President Obama made the following remarks on the economy at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois:

  • "Used to be that as companies did better, as profits went higher, workers also got a better deal.... [T]he income of the top 1 percent nearly quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, but the typical family's incomes barely budged. Even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits, nearly all the income gains of the past 10 years have continued to flow to the top 1 percent. The average CEO has gotten a raise of nearly 40 percent since 2009."
  • "[T]he trend of a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better while everybody else just treads water -- those trends have been made worse by the recession. And that's a problem."
  • "This growing inequality not just of result, inequality of opportunity, this growing inequality -- it's not just morally wrong; it's bad economics ..."
  • "It's time for the minimum wage to go up. We're not a people who allow chance of birth to decide life's biggest winners or losers."


Obama Speaks about America's Economic Injustice

On August 28, 2013—the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” speech—Obama spoke about America's economic inequity and the role that government could play in curbing it via wealth redistribution:

  • “Even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes, inequality has steadily risen over the decades. Upward mobility has become harder. In too many communities across this country in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence....

    “The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few. It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many …

    “Entrenched interests—those who benefit from an unjust status quo resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal, marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools—that all these things violated sound economic principles.

    “We'd be told that growing inequality was the price for a growing economy, a measure of the free market—that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.

    “And then there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth, that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity—that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant....

    “We can continue down our current path in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations, where politics is a zero-sum game, where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie....

    “And with that courage, we can stand together for good jobs and just wages. With that courage, we can stand together for the right to health care in the richest nation on earth for every person. With that courage, we can stand together for the right of every child, from the corners of Anacostia to the hills of Appalachia, to get an education that stirs the mind and captures the spirit and prepares them for the world that awaits them. With that courage, we can feed the hungry and house the homeless and transform bleak wastelands of poverty into fields of commerce and promise.”


Obama Calls for More Economic Equality and More Government Control of the Economy


In a December 4, 2013 speech on the U.S. economy, President Obama made the following remarks to his Center for American Progress audience:

  • "[I]n their own daily battles, to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement, [people have] the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them."
  • "[There] is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead. I believe this is the defining challenge of our time: making sure our economy works for every working American. That’s why I ran for president. It was the center of last year’s campaign. It drives everything I do in this office."
  • "When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security and insurance for the unemployment and a minimum wage. When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid. Together we forged a new deal, declared a war on poverty and a great society, we built a ladder of opportunity to climb and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known."
  • "[S]tarting in the late '70s ... [t]echnology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world led companies [to] ship jobs [overseas]. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage; jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.... [B]usinesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As the trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither."
  • "And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal and families that are more insecure.... Since 1979 our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of the growth has flowed to a fortunate few. The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income; it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country. So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy; across the developed world, inequality has increased.... But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people."
  • "The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less."
  • "[T]he idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care or a community that views her future as their own -- that should offend all of us. And it should compel us to action."
  • "And greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. That means it’s not just temporary. The effects last. It creates a vicious cycle. For example, by the time she turns three years old, a child born into a low-income home hears 30 million fewer words than a child from a well-off family, which means by the time she starts school, she’s already behind. And that deficit can compound itself over time."
  • "The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race. And that gap is growing. So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts."
  • "[W]e need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality.... Investments in education, laws establishing collective bargaining and a minimum wage -- these all contributed to rising standards of living for massive numbers of Americans."
  • "And [we should make] high-quality pre-school available to every child in America. We know that kids in these programs grow up are likelier to get more education, earn higher wages, form more stable families of their own. It starts a virtuous cycle, not a vicious one. And we should invest in that. We should give all of our children that chance."
  • "Now, we all know the arguments that have been used against the higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low- wage workers; business will be less likely to hire them. There’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs, and research shows it raises incomes for low-wage workers and boosts short-term economic growth. Others argue that if we raise the minimum wage, companies will just pass those costs on to consumers, but a growing chorus of businesses small and large argue differently ... A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage.... I agree with those voters. I agree with those voters and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hardworking Americans across the entire country."
  • "[W]e still need targeted programs for the communities and workers that have been hit hardest by economic change in the Great Recession.... There are communities that just aren’t generating enough jobs anymore. So we’ve put new forward new plans to help these communities and their residents ... not [with] handouts, but a hand up."


Obama Derides "Tax Loopholes for the Very Very Fortunate"

During a White House speech on June 9, 2014, President Obama criticized congressional Republicans for refusing to close tax loopholes for high earners as a way to pay for his initiative to limit student-loan interest payments to 10% of a person's annual income. Said Obama:

"It would be scandalous if we allowed those kinds of tax loopholes for the very, very fortunate to survive while students are having trouble just getting started in their lives. If you're a big oil company they'll go to bat for you. If you're a student, good luck. Some of these Republicans in Congress seem to believe that just because some of the young people behind me [i.e., college students in attendance] need some help, that they're not trying hard enough."

Further, Obama blasted lawmakers who "pay lip service to the next generation and then abandon them when it counts." He also urged voters to be aware of "who it is that's fighting for you and your kids and who it is that's not."

Radio broadcaster Mark Levin pointed out Obama's hypocrisy by noting that America's national debt had already grown by approximately $7 trillion under Obama's watch -- a fact that would impose a massive financial burden on "the next generation" for many decades to come.

 


DIVIDING AMERICANS BY RACE & ETHNICITY
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Characterizes America As “Mean-Spirited,” Where Race is Concerned

  • In an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990, Harvard Law School student Barack Obama said: “There's certainly racism here [at Harvard Law School]. There are certain burdens that are placed [on blacks], more emotionally at this point than concretely.... Hopefully, more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous. I mean, I really hope to be part of a transformation of this country.”


Obama Supports Professor Derrick Bell, Godfather of “Critical Race Theory”

  • In 1991, Obama, who was then president of the Harvard Law Review and a well-known figure on the Harvard campus, spoke at a rally in support of Professor Derrick Bell, encouraging his fellow students to “open up your hearts and minds to the words” of that individual, whom Obama described as someone who spoke “the truth.”
  • Professor Bell was the godfather of Critical Race Theory, which contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation's legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. It also holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in the American character, traditional American ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans that fail to properly combat—or to even acknowledge the existence of—the immense structural inequities that pervade American society and work against black people. Thus, according to critical race theorists, racial preferences (favoring blacks) in employment and higher education are not only permissible but necessary as a means of countering the permanent bigotry of white people who, as Bell put it, seek to “achieve a measure of social stability through their unspoken pact to keep blacks on the bottom.”
  • Bell, who died in 2011, also made a host of racially charged statements during approximately the same period as when Obama hailed his articulation of “the truth.” Below are several examples.


What Derrick Bell Said About Race

  • “The racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead.”
  • Few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
  • “Discrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs 'no negras need apply.'”
  • “It has begun to seem that blacks, particularly black men, who lack at least two college degrees, are not hired in any position above the most menial.” 
  • “We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
  • “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
  • “Black people will never gain full equality in this country.… African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
  • Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”
  • “The fact that, as victims, we suffer racism's harm but, as a people, [we] cannot share the responsibility for that harm, may be the crucial component in a definition of what it is to be black in America.”
  • Racism remains “an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society.”
  • In his 1992 book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Bell described Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious racist and anti-Semite, as “smart and superarticulate,” calling him “perhaps the best living example of a black man ready, willing and able to ‘tell it like it is’ regarding who is responsible for racism in this country.” In an interview that same year, Bell elaborated: “I see Louis Farrakhan as a great hero for the people.”
  • Also in 1992, Bell again articulated to his low regard for white people: “I’ve accepted that as my motto—I liv[e] to harass white folk.”
  • In a New York Observer interview published on October 10, 1994, Bell denounced “all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.” The same interview began with Bell stating: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” (Khalid Muhammad was a Farrakhan ally who referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” and offspring of “the devil.”)


Professor Obama Teaches about America's “Institutional Racism”

  • Twelve times between 1992 and 2004, Obama taught the course “Current Issues in Racism and the Law” at the University of Chicago Law School. The course summary, likely authored by Obama himself, told students they would examine “current problems in American race relations and the role the law has played in structuring the race debate”; how the legal system was affected by “the continued prevalence of racism in society”; “how the legal system has dealt with particular incidents of racism”; and “the comparative merits of litigation, legislation, and market solutions to the problems of institutional racism in American society.” The influence of Derrick Bell's ideas was unmistakable.


Obama's Relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Who Views America As a Racist Country

  • For two decades, Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor in Chicago. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Wright's many writings, public statements, and sermons reflect his conviction that America has historically been an evil nation, infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that have created a living hell for nonwhite people domestically and abroad.


What Obama's Longtime Mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Has Said

  • Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!”
  • “We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
  • “America is the #1 killer in the world.”
  • “We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly.”
  • “We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.”
  • “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
  • “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands [who died on 9/11] in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”
  • “The government gives [black people] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!”


Obama Tries to Keep Jeremiah Wright Quiet until after Election Day 2008

  • Soon after the Wright controversy became public—and threatened to derail Obama's presidential campaign—the pastor was interviewed by author Edward Klein. Wright told Klein that “one of Barack’s closest friends” had sent him (Wright) an e-mail offering him $150,000 “not to preach at all until the November presidential election.” Wright elaborated: “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place.... So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ ... just Barack and me.... And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.... It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’” Wright replied, “I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family [if I stop preaching]?” According to Wright, Obama then said: “I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth.”


Obama Depicts Opponents of Affirmative Action As Racists

  • In an October 28, 1994 NPR interview, Obama discussed American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray’s controversial new book, The Bell Curve, stating that: “[Murray is] interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It’s easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray’s calculations.”


Obama Implies that Suburban Whites Are Racist

  • In a 1995 interview, Obama made reference to a hypothetical “white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children for them to go to school.”


Obama Says Racism Infests Corporate America, the Criminal-Justice System, & Education

  • On January 21, 2002—Martin Luther King Day—then-Illinois state senator Obama delivered a racially charged speech at a Chicago church, stating that “Enron executives did to their employees” was akin to “what Bull Connor did to black folks.” (Enron was an energy company that went bankrupt after its massive engagement in accounting fraud had come to light in 2001, and left 20,000 employees suddenly jobless. Bull Connor was Birmingham, Alabama's Commissioner of Public Safety in the 1960s, and became famous for using fire hoses and police attack dogs against anti-segregation demonstrators in his city.)
  • Lamenting the large number of African American males “caught up in the criminal-justice system,” Obama said: “It’s hard to imagine that the powerful in our society would tolerate the burgeoning prison industrial complex if they imagined that the black men and Latino men that are being imprisoned were something like their sons.”
  • Obama charged that having the public “education system … funded by [local] property taxes” is “fundamentally unjust.” “So you have folks up in Winnetka [Illinois], pupils who are getting five times as much money per student as students in the South Side of Chicago,” he explained.


Obama Advocates Welfare State; Says Much Success Is Due to “Blind Luck”

  • In 2005, then-U.S. Senator Obama delivered a speech wherein he not only emphasized government's duty to expand the welfare state, but also ascribed the success of many people to “blind luck.” Said Obama: “The fact is that there is a major ideological battle taking place right now in this country. And I think that we can win it if we can articulate it. Essentially, the other side has an easier job, because their argument is essentially, what is labeled 'The Ownership Society' …. says 'We're all in it by ourselves.' So if you've got a healthcare problem, we're gonna set up a healthcare account, we'll put $5,000 in it, and from that point on, you're on your own. You worry about healthcare inflation. Retirement? Retirement account. Figure out how much you can save. It doesn't matter that your wages haven't gone up in 4 or 5 years. It doesn't matter that you're being squeezed by all sorts of costs, from $3 a gallon gasoline to the cost of higher education for your child. You figure out how to save. There's a certain attractiveness in its simplicity [to] that idea. And it's particularly attractive, I think, for those of us who are successful, because it allows us to be self-congratulatory and say, in fact, the cream rises to the top. … denying the role of blind luck that played in getting everybody here, or the sacrifices of a generation of women doing somebody else's laundry and looking after somebody else's children, to get you here.”


Obama Accuses Bush Administration of “Passive Indifference” in Responding to Hurricane Katrina's Effects on Mostly-Black New Orleans

  • In that same 2005 speech, Obama derided the “passive indifference” that allegedly had caused the Bush administration to respond slowly to the poor, black victims of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans. He also mocked the administration's supposedly elitist attitude and inability to empathize with people who were not white and affluent. Said Obama: “You know, after the hurricane and its aftermath, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that those who were impacted by the achingly slow response on the part of the federal government were disproportionately black … [W]hat was revealed was a passive indifference that is common in our culture, common in our society, that of course, a sense that of course once the evacuation order is issued, that you will hop in your SUV and fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline and load up your trunk with some sparkling water and take your credit card and check in to the nearest hotel until the storm passes. And the notion that folks couldn't do that simply did not register in the minds of those in charge. And it's not surprising that it didn't register, because it hasn't registered for the last 6, 7, 8, 20, 50, 75, 100 years.”


Obama Accuses the Bush Administration of Racial Insensitivity Regarding Hurricane Katrina

  • In September 2005, Senator Obama spoke at a town hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Nominally devoted to the subject of “eradicating poverty,” the meeting was replete with condemnations of President Bush, the Republican Party, and America’s purportedly intractable racial inequities. Obama stopped short of suggesting that the federal government's alleged slowness in helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina—especially black victims—was motivated by racism. But he nonetheless claimed that racism was the cause of what he perceived to be the Bush administration’s lack of sensitivity to the struggles of African Americans generally: “The incompetence was colorblind. What wasn’t colorblind was the indifference. Human efforts will always pale in comparison to nature’s forces. But [the Bush administration] is a set of folks who simply don’t recognize what’s happening in large parts of the country.”


Emphasis on Judges' “Hearts” and Their Inclination to Help “the Weak,” Rather Than on Abiding by the Law

  • When President Bush in 2005 nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Senator Obama stated that few Supreme Court cases involve any controversy at all, “so that both a [conservative like] Scalia and a [leftist like] Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases.” In the other 5 percent, he said, “the critical ingredient” was neither the law nor the Constitution says, but rather “what is in the judge’s heart.” Obama said in a floor speech on September 22, 2005: “[W]hen I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak ... he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process … he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
  • Obama was also “deeply troubled” by “the philosophy, ideology and record” of yet another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. “[W]hen you look at his record,” Obama said in a floor speech on January 26, 2006, “when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.”


Obama Endorses Dorothy Tillman, Proponent of Reparations and Admirer of Louis Farrakhan

  • In 2006, Senator Obama endorsed candidate Dorothy Tillman in the Third Ward race for the Chicago City Council. A passionate admirer of Louis Farrakhan, Tillman was a leading proponent of reparations for slavery. Claiming that America remains “one of the cruelest nations in the world when it comes to black folks,” Tillman continues to declare that the U.S. “owes blacks a debt.”


Obama's Charges Government with Racism in Response to Hurricane Katrina

  • In a June 2007 campaign appearance at Hampton University in Virginia, then-presidential candidate Obama delivered a racially charged and, at times, angry speech to an audience of black ministers, including his longtime pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Wright's long tradition of anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic rhetoric had recently been exposed by a few media outlets.) In the speech, Obama explicitly defended Wright, saying: “They [the media] had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church.” Obama then mocked Wright's critics, accusing them of having said, in essence: “Oh, that might be a separatist church.”
  • The Daily Caller said of the video showing Obama's 2007 speech: “For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America.... The spine of Obama’s speech is a parable about a pregnant woman shot in the stomach during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The baby is born with a bullet in her arm, which doctors successfully remove. That bullet, Obama explains, is a metaphor for the problems facing black America, namely racism. And with that, Obama pivots to his central point: The Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina have racism in common.”
  • In his Hampton speech, Obama shouted: “The federal response after Katrina was similar to the response we saw after the riots in LA. People in Washington, they wake up, they’re surprised: ‘There’s poverty in our midst! Folks are frustrated! Black people angry!’ Then there’s gonna be some panels, and hearings, and there are commissions and there are reports, and then there’s some aid money, although we don’t always know where it’s going—it can’t seem to get to the people who need it—and nothin’ really changes, except the news coverage quiets down and Anderson Cooper is on to something else.”
  • At that point in the speech, an agitated Obama told the crowd that he wanted to give “one example because this really steams me up.” He continued: “Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later, there’s a law, federal law—when you get reconstruction money from the federal government—called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar. Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act—said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together—because you’re part of the American family.’”
  • Obama then stated, angrily, that majority-black New Orleans was treated differently by the federal government: “What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans, they [government leaders] don’t care about as much!”
  • In reality, by January of 2007—fully six months before Obama’s Hampton University speech—the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina, as compared to just $20 billion that had been pledged to New York City after 9/11. Moreover, the federal government had, on occasion, waived the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. For instance, on May 25, 2007—a few weeks before Obama's Hampton speech—the Bush administration had sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no requirements for local outlays. It is inconceivable that Obama, as a sitting U.S. Senator, could have been unaware of this.
  • Also in the Hampton speech, Obama made repeated appeals to racial solidarity: “We [blacks] should have had our young people trained to rebuild the homes down in the Gulf. We don’t need Halliburton doing it. We can have the people who were displaced doing that work.... We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the [affluent white] suburbs.” Rather, said Obama: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
  • Obama ended his speech this way: “America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago”—an unambiguous reference to slavery.


2007 Speech to the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”)

In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama was a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.”
  • “[W]e are a nation of immigrants … That's the America we believe in. But that's the America that the President and too many Republicans walked away from when the politics got tough.... [W]e saw parts of the immigration debate took a turn that was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't seen since the struggle for civil rights....”
  • “[W]hen millions of children start the race of life so far behind only because of race, only because of class, that's a betrayal of our ideals. That's not just a Latino problem or an African-American problem; that is an American problem that we have to solve....”


2008 Speech to the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”)

In July 2008, candidate Obama again spoke to the National Council of La Raza. Among his remarks were the following:

  • “I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last ...”
  • “The system isn't working when Hispanics are losing their jobs faster than almost anybody else, or working jobs that pay less, and come with fewer benefits than almost anybody else.”
  • “The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids—when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel….”
  • “[W]e'll make the system work again for everyone. By living up to the ideals that this organization has always embodied the ideals reflected in your name, ‘Raza,’ the people. [Actually, a literal translation is “the race.”] … And together, we won't just win an election; we will transform this nation.”


Obama Administration's Massive Support for the National Council of La Raza

  • A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza and its affiliates skyrocketed after President Obama had appointed La Raza's senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. The year Muñoz joined the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza increased from $4.1 million to $11 million. Fully 60% of that money came from the Department of Labor, headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Also in 2010, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave La Raza $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000, and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.
  • Moreover, La Raza affiliates nationwide collected tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars in 2010. A La Raza offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa, for example, saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’s appointment. Another group, Ayuda Inc., which provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they will not be reported to authorities, took in $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. (The group had not received any federal funding between 2005 and 2008.)


Obama Appoints La Raza's Cecilia Munoz to Administrative Posts

  • In January 2009, President Obama appointed longtime National Council of La Raza policy analyst Cecilia Munoz to be his director of intergovernmental affairs. In 2012, Obama appointed Muñoz as director of the Domestic Policy Council.


Obama Urges Hispanic Voters to “Punish” Their “Enemies”

  • In a radio interview conducted in late October 2010, just a few days before the November midterm elections, Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he was committed to an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Stressing that such a goal would be much easier to achieve if the Democrats were to retain control of both houses of Congress, he urged Hispanic listeners to flock to the polls: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
  • Referring specifically to Republicans who were calling for border security and were supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Obama said: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”


Obama Says the Criminal-Justice System Is Racially Inequitable

  • In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “The criminal-justice system is not color-blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody.”
  • Also during the 2008 campaign, Obama said that “in our criminal-justice system, African-Americans and whites, for the same crime … are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, receive very different sentences.”
  • Obama has also complained that “certain sentences … are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from.”
  • As a legislator, Obama voted against a proposal to criminalize contact with gang members for any convicts who were free on probation or on bail. In 2001 he opposed, for reasons of racial equity, making gang membership a consideration in determining whether or not a killer may be eligible for capital punishment. “There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color,” said Obama. “… I think it's problematic for them [nonwhites] to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.”


What Obama Misrepresented:
The Truth about the Criminal-Justice System

Obama's assertions about the criminal-justice system are utterly untrue. They are designed not to instruct, but rather to divide Americans along racial lines. Consider the following:

  • As early as 1983, the Panel on Sentencing Research, which was established by the liberal-leaning National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on request of the U.S. Justice Department, reviewed more than 70 studies on sentencing patterns and concluded: “Our overall assessment of the available research suggests that factors other than racial discrimination in the sentencing process account for most of the disproportionate representation of black males in U.S. prisons ...” Further, the NAS reported that it had found “no evidence of a widespread systematic pattern of discrimination in sentencing.”
  • In a 1987 review essay of the three most comprehensive books examining the role of race in the American criminal-justice system, the journal Criminology concluded that there was little evidence of anti-black discrimination.
  • In his 1987 book The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, William Wilbanks wrote: “The black/white variation in sentences is generally reduced to near zero when several legal variables are introduced as controls.”
  • The most exhaustive, best-designed study of sentencing patterns ever conducted—a 1990 analysis of more than 11,000 recently convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes; race was found to have no effect whatsoever.
  • Likewise, a 1991 RAND Corporation study found that a defendant's racial or ethnic background bore little or no relationship to conviction rates; far more important than race were such factors as the amount of evidence presented, and whether or not a credible eyewitness testified.
  • In 1993 a Justice Department study tracked the experience of more than 10,000 accused felons in America's 75 largest cities found that black defendants fared better than their white counterparts—66% of black defendants were actually prosecuted, versus 69% of white defendants. Among those prosecuted, 75% of blacks were convicted, as compared to 78% of whites.
  • Liberal criminologist Michael Tonry wrote in 1995: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned.”
  • A 1996 analysis of 55,000 big-city felony cases found that black defendants were convicted at a lower rate than whites in 12 of the 14 federally designated felony categories. This finding was consistent with the overwhelming consensus of other, previous, well-designed studies, most of which indicated that black defendants were slightly less likely to be convicted of criminal charges against them than white defendants. 
  • In 1997, liberal criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen undertook a painstaking review of the voluminous literature on charging and sentencing, and concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” and not racism, explained why proportionately more blacks than whites were in prison—and for longer terms.
  • The foregoing realities remain true to this day. Even though America's legal-education and civil-rights establishments have created a massive industry devoted entirely to uncovering even the barest shred of evidence pointing toward white racism in the justice system, the net result of their herculean efforts has been nothing more than an occasional study showing a miniscule, unexplained racial disparity in sentencing, while most other analyses continue to find no racial effect at all.


Obama Says Crack Cocaine Laws Are Racially Discriminatory

  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated that the harsher penalties for crimes involving crack cocaine as opposed to powder-based cocaine—the former disproportionately involve black offenders, whereas the latter involve mostly white offenders—were unfair. In August 2010 he signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which eliminated much of the disparity in crack-vs.-powder sentencing guidelines.


What Obama Misrepresented:

The Truth about the Crack-vs.-Powder Sentencing Disparities

  • The original sentencing disparity was not due to racism in the justice system or in the legislature. The Congressional Record shows that in 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was first being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—deeply concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating black communities across the United States—strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties.
  • The vast majority of cocaine arrests in the U.S. are made at the state—not the federal—level, where sentencing disparities between cases involving crack and powder cocaine generally have never existed. Moreover, drug possession accounts for fewer than 2% of all the offenses that propel individuals into federal prisons. Those most likely to be incarcerated for drug convictions are not mere users, but traffickers who are largely career criminals with very long rap sheets.
  • The harsher punishments for crack violations harmed only a small subset of the black population—namely drug dealers and users—while benefiting the great mass of law-abiding people in black neighborhoods.
  • Critics of the crack-vs.-powder penalty imbalance have been largely silent on the matter of federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties—which, it could easily be argued, discriminate heavily against whites. Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather MacDonald explains: “The press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack: five grams of meth net you a mandatory minimum five-year sentence. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants (nearly as many as the [5,619] crack defendants) were 54 percent white, 39 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent black. But no one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white."


Obama Says Drug-Dealing Results from Economic Deprivation

  • In Obama’s calculus, many young black men engage in street-level drug dealing not because they seek to profit handsomely from it, but because they are unable to find legitimate jobs anywhere. Said Obama: “For many inner-city men, what prevents gainful employment is not simply the absence of motivation to get off the streets but the absence of a job history or any marketable skills—and, increasingly, the stigma of a prison record. We can assume that with lawful work available for young men now in the drug trade, crime in any community would drop.”


Obama's
African American Religious Leadership Committee

  • On December 4, 2007, Obama’s presidential campaign announced the creation of its African American Religious Leadership Committee. Among the committee's more notable members was Jeremiah Wright, whose contempt for white people was discussed at some length above.
  • Another member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee was the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a prominent figure with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Viewing the United States as a nation that is “not committed to serious efforts to address the issue of racism,” Lowery has warned that “white racism is gaining respectability again,” and that “there’s a resurgence of racism … at almost every level of life.” Further, Lowery has expressed contempt for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, because Thomas opposes the use of affirmative action (i.e., race preferences) in business and academia. “I have told [Thomas] I am ashamed of him,” says Lowery, “because he is becoming to the black community what Benedict Arnold was to the nation he deserted; and what Judas Iscariot was to Jesus: a traitor; and what Brutus was to Caesar: an assassin.”


Another Racialist Minister with Ties to Obama: James Meeks

  • Yet another religious figure affiliated with Obama (but not on his Advisory Council) is the Rev. James Meeks, a Democratic member of the Illinois state senate, where he served alongside Obama from 2002-2004. Meeks also has been the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000-member Salem Baptist Church since 1985, and he was once the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coalition. In 2003-04 Obama frequently campaigned at the Salem Baptist Church during his run for the U.S. Senate. Meeks, meanwhile, appeared in television ads supporting Obama’s candidacy. In 2004, Obama personally selected Meeks to endorse him in a radio ad. In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama described Meeks as an adviser to whom he looked for “spiritual counsel.” In 2007 Meeks served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency. The Obama campaign website listed Meeks as one of the candidate’s “influential black supporters.” A Meeks endorsement of Obama was featured on that same website in 2008. Also in 2008, Meeks was named as an Illinois superdelegate pledged to Obama for the Democratic convention in Denver, Colorado.
  • In July 2006, Meeks sparked controversy when he delivered a heated sermon excoriating Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others regarding public-school funding issues. “We don’t have slave masters,” Meeks shouted. “We got mayors. But they [are] still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able ... to be educated.”
  • Also among the targets of Meeks’ wrath were blacks who supported Daley. Said Meeks: “You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”


Accusing Republicans of Racism

  • At a June 2008 campaign stop in Jacksonville, Florida, Obama suggested that his political opponents were trying to exploit the issue of race to undermine his candidacy. “It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” he said. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
  • The following month, Obama told his listeners at another campaign event: “They [Republicans] know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”


Obama's Alliance with Al Sharpton

  • In March 2008, civil-rights activist Al Sharpton, a strong supporter of Obama’s presidential candidacy, revealed publicly that he was in the habit of speaking to Obama on a regular basis—“two or three times a week.”
  • Sharpton also said that he had told Obama earlier in the campaign that he (Sharpton) would prefer, because of his own controversial reputation, not to formally endorse Obama for president: “I can be freer not endorsing you to help you and everybody else.” But according to Sharpton, Obama then protested and asked for his public support: “No, no, no. I want you to endorse.”
  • In 2008, Obama, as he had also done the year before, addressed Al Sharpton's National Action Network to seek its support for his presidential campaign. Calling Sharpton “a voice for the voiceless and ... dispossessed,” Obama stated: “What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.”
  • On April 6, 2011, President Obama traveled to New York's Sheraton Hotel & Towers to attend a 20th anniversary celebration of Al Sharpton's National Action Network. When addressing the crowd, Obama, who had heartily embraced Sharpton with a hug and a handshake, joked: “Some things have changed a lot since 1991. I told Reverend Al backstage he's getting skinnier than me. But he hasn't lost his style.” Obama also praised “the National Action Network's commitment to fight injustice and inequality here in New York City and across America. That's not only a testament to Reverend Sharpton. It's a testament to all of you who are here tonight. I want to commend you for the work that you've done over the last two decades.”
  • On December 4, 2012, President Barack Obama met with several “influential progressive” advisors (as described by White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest) to strategize on how to best sell the American public on the need to raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or more, while extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all other U.S. residents. Among those advisors were Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC host Ed Schultz, and Arianna Huffington.


Who Is Al Sharpton, Friend of Obama?

  • In 1987 Sharpton promoted the fiction that a black teenager named Tawana Brawley had been repeatedly raped and sodomized by six white kidnappers in upstate New York. The case dragged on for many months and caused immense racial turmoil in New York.
  • In the aftermath of a 1991 Brooklyn, New York car accident in which a Hasidic Jew accidentally killed a seven-year-old black child, Sharpton declared that the child's death was due not merely to a car accident, but rather to “the social accident of apartheid.” Thereafter he organized a series of massive demonstrations to protest what he viewed as the racial undertones of the killing. He even challenged local Jews—“diamond merchants,” he called them—to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” to settle the score if they disagreed with his portrayal of the incident. Stirred in part by Sharpton’s incendiary rhetoric, hundreds of Crown Heights blacks took to the streets, pelting Jewish homes with rocks, setting vehicles on fire, and shouting “Jew! Jew!” As the riots continued for three days and nights, Sharpton said: “We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system.” 
  • In 1995 Sharpton led his National Action Network in a boycott against Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned business in Harlem, New York. The boycott started when Freddy’s owners announce that because they wanted to expand their own business, they would no longer sublet part of their store to a black-owned record shop. The street leader of the boycott, Morris Powell, was the head of Sharpton’s “Buy Black” Committee. He repeatedly referred to the Jewish proprietors of Freddy’s as “crackers” and “greedy Jew bastards.” All of this occurred under the watchful, approving eye of Sharpton, who vowed not to allow “some white interloper” to “expand his business” in Harlem, and who exhorted blacks to join “the struggle brother Powell and I are engaged in.” The subsequent picketing became increasingly militant in its tone, until one of the protesters eventually shot four whites inside the store and then set the building on fire—killing seven people.
  • That same year, Sharpton told an audience at New Jersey’s Kean College: “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton’s Kean College speech also featured his assertion that America’s founders consisted of “the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe … to the colonies.” “So [if] some cracker,” Sharpton continued, “come and tell you, ‘Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold you pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks.”


Obama's
Black Advisory Council (Cornel West)

  • For his 2008 presidential run, Obama formed a Black Advisory Council whose members included, most notably: (a) Professor Cornel West, a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America and a great admirer of Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright; and (b) Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, a reparations-for-slavery proponent who has advised Obama on such matters as criminal-justice reform.
  • In 2007, Obama had appeared with Cornel West at a Harlem, New York fundraiser attended by some 1,500 people. It was Obama's first campaign visit to Harlem, and it came shortly after the senator had announced his candidacy for President. At the event, West vehemently denounced the “racist criminal-justice system” of the “American empire.” He then introduced Obama to the crowd, saying: “He is my brother and my companion and comrade.” When Obama took the microphone, he expressed his gratitude to West, calling him “not only a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, an oracle ... he's also a loving person.” The senator then asked the audience to give West a round of applause.


Who Is Cornel West, the “Genius” and “Oracle”?

  • West's views on race are extremely noteworthy. He has branded the U.S. a “racist patriarchal” nation where “white supremacy” continues to define everyday life. “White America,” he writes, “has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks.” This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many “degraded and oppressed people [who are] hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth.”
  • West attributes most of the black community's problems to “existential angst derive[d] from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture.” He explains that “the accumulated effect of the black wounds and scars suffered in a white-dominated society is a deep-seated anger, a boiling sense of rage, and a passionate pessimism regarding America's will to justice.” “It goes without saying,” he adds, “that a profound hatred of African people ... sits at the center of American civilization.”
  • In West's view, the 9/11 attacks gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the United States—feeling “unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and hated for who they are.” “Since 9/11,” he said, “the whole nation has the blues, when before it was just black people.”


“They Cling to Guns or Religion”: Obama Refers to American Bigotry and Intolerance

  • During an April 2008 campaign stop in San Francisco, Obama said: “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”


Obama Says Inadequate Funding for Education Causes High Minority-Dropout Rates

  • In the 2008 campaign, Obama said: “Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters.”


Obama Favors Racial Preferences

  • Obama supports racial preferences for nonwhite minorities in university admissions, public employment, and state contracting. “I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination,” said Obama in April 2008.


Obama Laments Ame
rica's Mistreatment of Native Americans

  • Speaking at a July 2008 gathering of hundreds of minority journalists in Chicago, Obama said the United States should acknowledge its history of treating certain ethnic groups poorly: “There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for…. I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged…. I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”


Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court


The Henr
y Louis Gates Affair and America's “Long History” of Racial Injustice

  • On the afternoon of July 16, 2009, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates (an African American) became involved in a high-profile controversy with racial overtones when a neighbor, mistaking him for someone trying to break into a Cambridge, Massachusetts home, called the police. (Unknown to the caller was the fact that the house in question, whose front door was jammed—thus making it impossible for Gates to open it with his key—was Gates’ own residence.) When a white police sergeant named James Crowley arrived at the scene to investigate, Gates became verbally abusive and accused Crowley of being a racist who was targeting him only “[b]ecause I'm a black man in America.” Ultimately Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, though the charges were later dropped. Obama, without knowing all the facts of the case, said it was “fair to say” that the officers had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates. Obama further said that the arrest played into what he called the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”


Obama Calls for Support from “African Americans, Latinos, and Women”

  • In late April 2010, President Obama narrated an ad calling on American voters to support Democrats in the upcoming November midterm elections. Said Obama in the ad: “It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.”


You’re Going to Be Harassed”: Obama Criticizes Arizona's New Immigration Law

  • On April 23, 2010, Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior or circumstances of those individuals led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. This Arizona measure was not a departure from existing law, but simply sought to enforce a federal statute that was being enforced inadequately. President Obama depicted the law as a “misguided” example of legislative “irresponsibility” that would “undermine basic notions of fairness,” and he ordered the Justice Department to find some way to challenge its standing.
  • At an April 27, 2010 Iowa town hall meeting, completely misrepresented the new law: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona—your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen.”
  • On June 17, 2010, the Obama administration announced that it intended to sue the state of Arizona over the law.


Obama Criticizes Arizona Immigration Law in Meeting with Mexican President

  • On May 19, 2010, Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who blasted the controversial immigration law that had been recently passed in Arizona. Obama, during his own welcoming remarks to Calderon, called the Arizona law a “misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system.”


Obama Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling on the Arizona Immigration Law

  • When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Arizona law in June 2012, Obama said: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law.... At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally.... No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.


The DREAM Act by Executive Order:
Obama Announces Plan to Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Who Came to U.S. As Children

  • In July 2012, Obama issued an executive order to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants who: had come to the United States before the age of 16; had lived in the U.S. for at least five years; were either students, high-school graduates, or military veterans in good standing; had clean criminal records; and were still under the age of 30. The new policy was expected to affect 2 million to 3 million illegal immigrants.
  • This was a fulfillment of Obama's previous assertion that he intended to use executive order to enact as much of the so-called DREAM Act as possible, since Congress had not passed the bill on its own. Notably, Congress had voted three times to reject the terms that Obama now said he would deal out all by himself.
  • Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said he planned to sue the Obama administration to halt its effort to “legislate by executive order” rather than legislative approval. Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner called Obama's decision “offensive to the millions of Americans still out of work.” “It rewards law-breaking,” Sensenbrenner said. “And it’s deeply unfair to those who came to this country legally.”
  • Conservative political commentator Byron York offered this incisive analysis: “With his announcement that he will, in effect, unilaterally enact a key feature of long-debated immigration reform, President Obama is doing something he has always wished to do: Get around a Congress that doesn't see the issue his way. In a speech to La Raza last July, Obama said that on the question of immigration reform, 'some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.' Obama said he found the idea 'very tempting' but had to reject it because 'that's not how our system works.'” But now Obama had found a way to beat that same system.


Obama Makes It Virtually Impossible to Deport Anyone Living in the U.S. Illegally Unless They Have also Committed an Additional Crime

  • On December 21, 2012, Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive “reinforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction.”


Obama Expands DREAM Act Protections to Illegal Immigrant Relatives of "DREAMers"

  • On August 23, 2013, the Obama DHS issued a directive “expanding that [summer 2012 executive order regarding the DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries.”


“Maybe They'll Need a Moat” with “Alligators”: Obama Mocks Republican Position on Illegal Immigration

  • In May 2011, President Obama went to El Paso, Texas to give what was billed as an important speech on immigration. When he mentioned the border fence which was under construction at that time, the crowd shouted, “Tear it down!” When he criticized Republicans, the audience booed and shouted, “They're racist.” At other times, the crowd joined Obama in chanting, “Yes, we can.”
  • At one point during his speech, Obama claimed that “the [border] fence is now basically complete.” He then promptly mocked opponents of illegal immigration, saying, “Maybe they'll need a moat [i.e., to keep Mexicans out of the United States]. Maybe they'll need alligators in the moat.”
  • In reality, fewer than 700 miles of the more than 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexico border had any sort of barrier, and less than 5% of the border had the type of robust, double-fenced barrier that Congress had initially requested. Moreover, a recent Government Accountability Office study had found that 40% of the border was essentially open and unguarded.


Obama Justice Department Ignores Civil Rights Cases with White Victims

  • On Election Day, November 4, 2008, two members of the New Black Panther Party—a profoundly racist organization that has called for violence and murder against white people—intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence at a Philadelphia polling station. Those two members—Jerry Jackson and Minister King Samir Shabazz—derided passersby as “White Devils” and shouted: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker!” On January 7, 2009, the Justice Department under President Bush filed criminal charges against Jackson, Minister Shabazz, and New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz for violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The failure of all three men to appear in court led to an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell to seek judgments or sanctions against the three Panthers.
  • But in May 2009, the Obama Justice Department suddenly dismissed the case. The following month, J. Christian Adams, who had served in the Voting Section of the Justice Department for 5 years, resigned over the “corrupt nature of the dismissal of the case.” Wrote Adams in 2010: “The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career.... The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the 'facts and law' did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls.... Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.”
  • In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Obama officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”


More Allegations that the Obama Justice Department Ignores Civil Rights Cases Involving White Victims

  • In September 2010, Christopher Coates, Voting Section Chief for the Justice Department, corroborated the previous testimony of J. Christian Adams, stating that the Department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving white victims. Coates had delayed testifying (to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) on this matter for more than a year—at the request of the Justice Department. Now, however, he chose to go public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws.


Obama Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

  • In September 2010, the Obama Justice Department announced that it would sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his strong stance against illegal immigration. The Justice Department charged that Arpaio's trademark immigration patrols had racially profiled Latinos. Said Arpaio: “If they sue, we'll go to court. And then we'll find out the real story. They're telling me how to run my organization. I'd like to get this resolved, but I'm not going to give up my authority to the federal government. It's as simple as that.”


Obama Signs Bill Paying $1.15 Billion in Discrimination Compensation to Black Farmers

  • As the result of a 1999 decision on a class action suit known as Pigford v. Glickman, the federal government paid approximately $1 billion to 15,640 black farmers who claimed that the that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against them by refusing to provide them with federally subsidized farm loans and benefits during the years 1981-96. In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama pushed to get another $100 million appropriated through that year's farm bill, to compensate black farmers who alleged USDA discrimination but had missed the 1999 filing deadline under the original Pigford case. “I am also pleased that the bill includes my proposal to help thousands of African-American farmers get their discrimination claims reviewed under the Pigford settlement,” said Obama.
  • Then, in early December 2010, President Obama signed the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, which awarded another $1.15 billion to 94,000 black farmers alleging USDA discrimination between 1981-96. When signing the bill, Obama lamented the “long and unfortunate chapter in our history” that it represented.
  • According to the Census Bureau, the number of black farmers in America between 1981 and 1996 peaked at 33,000 in 1982. More than 15,000 of those had already received settlements under Pigford I. The USDA predicted that about 3,000 of the remaining 18,000 black farmers would now come forward to file additional discrimination claims. Instead, the actual total was 94,000 people claiming to have been “victimized” by the USDA.


Obama USDA Awards $760 Million to Native American Farmers As Compensation for “Discrimination”

  • In October 2010, the Obama USDA settled the so-called Keepseagle case, agreeing to make $760 million available to Native American farmers and ranchers contending that they had not received the same farm loan opportunities as whites between 1981-99.


Obama USDA Offers Female and Hispanic farmers over $1.3 billion in “Discrimination” Payouts

  • On September 24, 2012, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who believed the USDA had discriminated against them between 1981 and 2000, could now file claims to get a portion of at least $1.33 billion in cash awards and tax relief payments, and up to $160 million in farm debt relief. Said Vilsack: “The opening of this claims process is part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers.” The USDA said it would use mail, media, and community advocacy groups to ensure that those eligible would be made aware of the claims process.


The Fraudulence of the Black, Native American, Hispanic, and Female Farmer "Discrimination Payouts Is Confirmed

On April 25, 2013, The New York Times reported the folowing:

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

In the winter of 2010, after a decade of defending the government against bias claims by Hispanic and female farmers, Justice Department lawyers seemed to have victory within their grasp.

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

But a succession of courts — and finally the Supreme Court — had rebuffed their pleas. Instead of an army of potential claimants, the government faced just 91 plaintiffs. Those cases, the government lawyers figured, could be dispatched at limited cost. They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud....

The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.

As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.

The groups found a champion in the new agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack. New settlements would provide “a way to neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic, Native American or women farmers,” an internal department memorandum stated in March 2010.

The payouts pitted Mr. Vilsack and other political appointees against career lawyers and agency officials, who argued that the legal risks did not justify the costs.

Beyond that, they said it was legally questionable to sidestep Congress and compensate the Hispanic and female farmers out of a special Treasury Department account, known as the Judgment Fund. The fund is restricted to payments of court-approved judgments and settlements, as well as to out-of-court settlements in cases where the government faces imminent litigation that it could lose. Some officials argued that tapping the fund for the farmers set a bad precedent, since most had arguably never contemplated suing and might not have won if they had....

A 2010 settlement with Native Americans was contentious for its own reasons. Justice Department lawyers argued that the $760 million agreement far outstripped the potential cost of a defeat in court. Agriculture officials said not that many farmers would file claims.

That prediction proved prophetic. Only $300 million in claims were filed, leaving nearly $400 million in the control of plaintiffs’ lawyers to be distributed among a handful of nonprofit organizations serving Native American farmers. Two and a half years later, the groups have yet to be chosen. It is unclear how many even exist....

[Senior Justice Department officials] said the attorney general had broad discretion to settle litigation. “It was a priority for the administration to resolve the long-standing discrimination cases,” a senior official said, and give “farmers who believed they had been discriminated against a chance to seek redress.” ...

Farmers routinely borrow money to carry themselves from high-cost planting season to harvest time; lack of credit can lead to barren fields. The original lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman, filed in federal court in Washington in August 1997, argued that the Agriculture Department’s credit bureau, now called the Farm Service Agency, routinely denied or limited loans to black farmers while freely distributing them to whites.

Two government reports that year found no evidence of ongoing, systemic discrimination. The Government Accountability Office reported that 16 percent of minority farmers were denied loans, compared with 10 percent of white farmers, but traced the difference to objective factors like bad credit. An Agriculture Department study also found “no consistent picture of disparity” over the previous two years.

But the study concluded that decades of discrimination before then had cost African-American farmers significant amounts of land and income. Black farmers gave heart-rending accounts of loan officers who withheld promised money while crops withered, who repossessed their land and sold it to white cronies, who advised them to milk cows for white farmers rather than sow their own crops.

Written discrimination complaints had fallen on deaf ears at the Agriculture Department, where the civil rights office had been disbanded during the Reagan administration.

John W. Boyd Jr., a Virginia farmer who leads the National Black Farmers Association, was among those who pressed President Bill Clinton to settle the case....

Just five months after the lawsuit was filed, and without the investigative step of discovery, the Justice Department opened settlement negotiations....

“[I]t was more a political decision than a litigation decision,” said one lawyer familiar with the administration’s stance. “The administration was genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these farmers.” ...

[Presiding Federal Judge Paul L. Friedman] initially limited the class of potential claimants to African-Americans who had farmed between 1981 and 1996 and had previously filed written discrimination complaints. But his final order significantly expanded the class, admitting those who had only “attempted to farm.” And it threw out the requirement for a written bias complaint, stating that an oral complaint was sufficient if someone other than a family member attested to it in an affidavit.

The Agriculture Department was partly to blame for the lack of records. It routinely discarded failed loan applications after three years, and it had badly mismanaged written discrimination complaints. Ninety percent of the farmers had no records either, plaintiffs’ lawyers said.

The billion-dollar settlement, the judge’s opinion said, was designed to provide “those class members with little or no documentary evidence with a virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000.” Those with documentary proof could seek higher awards, a tack ultimately chosen by fewer than 1 percent of applicants.

Justice Department lawyers worried about false claims. But the lawyer familiar with the Clinton administration’s stance said they had decided that “it was better to err on the side of giving money to people who might not qualify if they went through litigation than to deny money to people who actually deserve it.” ...

Accusations of unfair treatment could be checked against department files if claimants had previously received loans. But four-fifths of successful claimants had never done so. For them, “there was no way to refute what they said,” said Sandy Grammer, a former program analyst from Indiana who reviewed claims for three years. “Basically, it was a rip-off of the American taxpayers.”

The true dimensions of the problem are impossible to gauge. The Agriculture Department insists that the names and addresses of claimants are protected under privacy provisions. But department data released in response to a Freedom of Information request by The Times are telling. The data cover 15,601 African-Americans who filed successful claims and were paid before 2009.

In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.

In Maple Hill, a struggling town in southeastern North Carolina, the number of people paid was nearly four times the total number of farms. More than one in nine African-American adults there received checks. In Little Rock, Ark., a confidential list of payments shows, 10 members of one extended family collected a total of $500,000, and dozens of other successful claimants shared addresses, phone numbers or close family connections.

Thirty percent of all payments, totaling $290 million, went to predominantly urban counties — a phenomenon that supporters of the settlement say reflects black farmers’ migration during the 15 years covered by the lawsuit. Only 11 percent, or $107 million, went to what the Agriculture Department classifies as “completely rural” counties....

The claim period ended in late 1999, although the adjudication process dragged on for a dozen years. But the gusher of claims had only begun.

“Once those checks started hitting the mailboxes, people couldn’t believe it,” said Mr. Wright, the Pine Bluff justice of the peace. “Then it dawned on them. ‘If Joe Blow got a check, I can get one.’” ...

Some 66,000 claims poured in after the 1999 deadline. Noting that the government had given “extensive” notice, Judge Friedman ruled the door closed to late filers. “That is simply how class actions work,” he wrote.

But it was not how politics worked. The next nine years brought a concerted effort to allow the late filers to seek awards. Career Agriculture Department officials warned that they might be even more problematic than initial claimants: in one ZIP code in Columbus, Ohio, nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed, according to the former high-ranking agency official.

President George W. Bush was unreceptive to farmers’ repeated protests. But Congress was not: legislators from both parties, including Mr. Obama as a senator in 2007, sponsored bills to grant the late filers relief.

Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign. Hilary Shelton, the N.A.A.C.P.’s chief lobbyist, said Mr. Obama’s stance helped establish him as a defender of the concerns of rural African-American communities.

Public criticism came primarily from conservative news outlets like Breitbart.com and from Congressional conservatives like Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, who described the program as rife with fraud. Few Republicans or Democrats supported him. Asked why, Mr. King said, “Never underestimate the fear of being called a racist.”

Congress finally inserted a provision in the 2008 farm bill allowing late filers to bring new lawsuits, with their claims to be decided by the same standard of evidence as before. The bill also declared a sense of Congress that minority farmers’ bias claims and lawsuits should be quickly and justly resolved.

Congress overrode a veto by Mr. Bush, who objected to other provisions in the bill. But as Mr. Bush left Washington, Congress had appropriated only $100 million for compensation, hardly enough to pay for processing claims.

Within months of taking office, President Obama promised to seek an additional $1.15 billion. In November 2010, Congress approved the funds. To protect against fraud, legislators ordered the Government Accountability Office and the Agriculture Department’s inspector general to audit the payment process.

But simultaneously, the Agriculture Department abandoned the costly and burdensome review process it had applied to earlier claims. As a result, according to internal government memos, the percentage of successful claims is expected to exceed that in the original 1999 settlement. More than 40,000 claims have been filed and are under review.

In November, the G.A.O. concluded that antifraud provisions provided “reasonable assurance” of weeding out false claims, saying more than 3,100 suspicious applications had been identified. But as before, it noted, late filers need not document claims, leaving adjudicators to rely on assertions that they have “no way of independently verifying.” ...

The Bush Justice Department had rebuffed all efforts to settle the parallel discrimination suits brought by Native American, Hispanic and female farmers. But now, the Obama administration’s efforts to compensate African-American farmers intensified pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to settle those cases as well.

Within the administration, Secretary Vilsack, a former Iowa governor who had briefly run for president, found an ally in Mr. West, who had been named an assistant attorney general after serving as a major Obama fund-raiser....

The Native-American case was clearly problematic for the government. The federal judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, had already certified the plaintiffs as a class, although only to seek changes in government practices and policies. He postponed a decision on whether they could seek monetary damages as a class.

But Justice Department litigators were far from unarmed. If they lost on damages, case law suggested that the decision might be reversed. Depositions had revealed many of the individual farmers’ complaints to be shaky. And federal judges had already scornfully rejected the methodology of the plaintiffs’ expert, a former Agriculture Department official named Patrick O’Brien, in the women’s case.

Mr. O’Brien contended that white farmers were two to three times as likely as Native Americans to receive federal farm loans in the 1980s and 1990s than were other farmers. But the government’s expert, Gordon C. Rausser, a professor of economics and statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, had produced a 340-page report stating that Mr. O’Brien’s conclusions were based “in a counter-factual world” and that Native Americans had generally fared as well as white male farmers.

Professor Rausser was astounded when, with both sides gearing up for trial in late 2009, the government began settlement negotiations. “If they had gone to trial, the government would have prevailed,” he said.

“It was just a joke,” he added. “I was so disgusted. It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans.”

Agriculture officials predicted that only 5,300 Native Americans were likely to file claims. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, whose fees were to be based on a percentage of the settlement, estimated up to 19,000 claims.

Only 4,400 people filed claims, with 3,600 winning compensation at a cost of roughly $300 million. That left $460 million unspent — of which roughly $400 million under the terms of the settlement must be given to nonprofit groups that aid Native American farmers....

The remaining $60.8 million will go to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, led by the Washington firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll....

On Feb. 19, 2010, Alan Wiseman, a lawyer for the Hispanic farmers, strode into Federal District Court in Washington unusually upbeat. “Sometimes,” he told Judge James Robertson, “it takes divine intervention” to move the government.

Over the past decade, his case had not gone well. Nor had the parallel lawsuit brought by female farmers.

Judge Robertson had refused to certify either group as a class. The United States Court of Appeals had upheld him, stating in 2006 that the Hispanic plaintiffs had been denied loans “for a variety of reasons, including inadequate farm plans and lack of funds.” Nor had female farmers proved a pattern of bias, the court found.

The Justice Department’s lawyers had definitively ruled out any group-style settlement. “Some of these folks have never made a loan payment in their entire history with U.S.D.A.,” Lisa A. Olson, the lead government litigator against the 81 Hispanic plaintiffs, told Judge Robertson in August 2009. “There may even be folks who are under criminal investigation.”

Michael Sitcov, assistant director of the Justice Department’s federal program branch, told the judge that senior department officials agreed with career litigators that the cases should be fought one by one.

But members of the Congressional Hispanic caucus and a group of eight Democratic senators, led by Mr. [Bob] Menendez, were lobbying the White House to move in the opposite direction. They grew increasingly agitated as the plaintiffs’ cases appeared to falter.

In a letter to Mr. Obama in June 2009, the senators noted that black farmers stood to receive $2.25 billion in compensation, but that Hispanic farmers, who alleged the same kind of discrimination, had gotten nothing. Should that continue, Mr. Menendez wrote that September, “Hispanic farmers and ranchers, and their supporters, will be reaching out to community and industry leaders outside of the Beltway in order to bring wider attention to this problem.”

The issue came to a head after the Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue of class certification. The next month, on Feb. 11, 2010, Daniel J. Meltzer, principal deputy White House counsel, held the first of three meetings at which resolution of the case was discussed, records and interviews show. Among the attendees were senior Justice and Agriculture Department officials, including Mr. West, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, and Krysta Harden, then the assistant agriculture secretary for Congressional relations. Settlement negotiations began the next week.... Attorneys for the 81 Hispanic farmers also raised the vague specter of tens of thousands of plaintiffs....

In agreeing to the payout, the government did, for the first time, impose a greater evidentiary burden. While one major category of claimants — those who said their loan applications had been unfairly denied — remained eligible for payments of up to $50,000 without any documentation, others were required to produce written evidence that they had complained of bias at the time. The Hispanic plaintiffs were indignant.

Adam P. Feinberg, who represents some of them, said: “Once the government puts a program in place for one racial group, even if it decides it is too generous, it cannot adopt a different set of restrictions for another racial group. It’s outrageous.”

The claims process opened in late September, six weeks before the election. In the weeks before the March 25 deadline, facing far fewer claimants than expected, the Agriculture Department instructed processors to call about 16,000 people to remind them that time was running out, despite internal disquiet that the government was almost recruiting claims against itself. The deadline was then extended to May 1.

So far, about 1,900 Hispanics and 24,000 women have sought compensation, many in states where middlemen have built a cottage industry, promising to help win payouts for a fee.


Obama Justice Department Alleges Racism in Police Departments

  • On May 31, 2011, Salon.com reported that “President Obama's Justice Department is aggressively investigating several big urban police departments for systematic civil rights abuses such as harassment of racial minorities, false arrests, and excessive use of force....”


Claiming That Voter ID Laws Are Racist and Discriminatory

  • Many Americans believe that Voter ID requirements should be implemented at polling places, to reduce or eliminate the possibility of voter fraud occurring. They believe that voter fraud breeds distrust of government, and that voters who fear that their legitimate votes will be negated by fraudulent ones have reason to feel disenfranchised.
  • President Obama and his administration take a very different view. They contend that African Americans and Hispanics are considerably less likely than others to hold government-issued forms of photo ID. Thus they say that Voter ID laws are racially discriminatory and function as a modern-day equivalent of “poll taxes” that disenfranchise minorities.
  • The notion that a disproportionate number of nonwhites lack a photo ID can be traced most significantly to a deeply flawed November 2006 report by the left-wing Brennan Center for Justice. Indeed, a footnote in the report itself states plainly that “[t]he survey did not yield statistically significant results for differential rates of possession of citizenship documents by race, age, or other identified demographic factors.”
  • Notably, the Brennan Center statistics are sharply at odds with the findings of previous studies on voter-identification documents. For example, a 2008 American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID. Similarly, a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample—less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters—were unable to vote because of an ID requirement.”
  • Moreover, the Heritage Foundation notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one.”
  • Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, the Obama administration has characterized Voter ID as a civil-rights issue with deep racial implications. In a December 2011 speech condemning Voter ID laws, for instance, Attorney General Eric Holder said: “It is time to ask: What kind of nation and what kind of people do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era—our era—to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended?”
  • In a May 2012 speech, Holder warned that “some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang, again, in the balance.”
  • Holder's contention that Voter ID laws are unnecessary was dealt an embarrassing blow in early 2012, when James O'Keefe, a 28-year-old white investigative journalist, posted online a video of himself walking into the polling place in Holder’s District of Columbia precinct, falsely identifying himself as Eric Holder (the highly prominent 61-year-old, black Attorney General), and asking for a ballot so he could vote in the Democratic primary which was being held that day. The video shows a poll worker responding to O'Keefe's request by willingly offering him Holder's ballot and making no effort to verify the young man's identity.
  • By June 2012, the Obama Justice Department of President Obama had filed suit against both Texas and South Carolina for having passed Voter ID statutes.


Opposition to Purging Voter Rolls of Ineligible Names

  • Invariably, opponents of Voter ID laws also oppose initiatives to purge voter rolls of ineligible names—e.g. people who are deceased, who have relocated to a different state or voting district, or who have been convicted of felonies. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has made no effort to enforce laws requiring states to remove ineligible names from their voter rolls. In late May 2012, DOJ actually ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts to verify the identity and eligibility of the people listed on its voter rolls.
  • But Florida election officials refused to comply, citing the fact that they had already identified some 53,000 still-registered voters who were deceased. Further, the officials estimated that some approximately 182,000 non-citizens were on Florida's registered-voter rolls as well.
  • Obama's DOJ filed suit against Florida on June 12, 2012.
  • In a July 2010 column for PJ Media, former DOJ Voting Section attorney J. Christian Adams exposed the Obama Justice Department's resolve to turn a blind eye to problems involving corrupted voter rolls. Adams wrote that in November 2009, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes had bluntly told dozens of Voting Section employees: “We have no interest in enforcing this provision [voter list integrity] of the law. It has nothing to do with increasing turnout, and we are just not going to do it.”


The Trayvon Martin Case

  • When the black Sanford, Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in an altercation with a “white Hispanic” man named George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012, Obama lamented: “If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.” Further, Obama urged all Americans “to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”
  • Obama did not explain why this particular incident should be weighted with such racial significance, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of interracial crime in the United States is black-on-white, and more than 90% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.
  • It was subsequently learned that the Martin-Zimmerman incident was by no means a case of stalking and cold-blooded murder, as the media and civil-rights activists (and, by, implication, Obama) had portrayed it. In fact, just prior to the shooting, Martin had been pummeling Zimmerman viciously, inflicting a broken nose, two black eyes, and a head wound on the latter. Moreover, before shooting Martin, Zimmerman had desperately cried out for help 14 times.
  • In July 2013, it was learned that in the immediate aftermath of the Martin killing, the Community Relations Service (CRS), a small office within the U.S. Department of Justice, sent taxpayer-funded political agitators to Sanford, where they helped organize protest demonstrations and convey the false impression that the killer had racial motives. At one of those rallies -- the March 31, 2012 "March for Trayvon Martin” -- the featured speaker, Al Sharpton, advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution. According to journalist Matthew Vadum:

    "DOJ documents provided to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the weeks before Zimmerman was charged, CRS expended thousands of dollars to help organize marches in which participants exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that he be prosecuted.

    "According to the documentation, CRS employees were involved in 'marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain'; providing 'support for protest deployment in Florida'; rendering 'technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31 [2012]'; and providing 'technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.'

    "In April [2012], CRS 'set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police chief Bill Lee, according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,' the document dump revealed."
  • On July 19, 2013 -- a few days after Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges -- Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room to issue a statement. His remarks included the following:

    "First of all ... I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation....

    "You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn’t go away.

    "There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

    "And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

    "And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

    "The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case....

    "We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

    "And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

    "I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.

    "So -- so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or -- and that context is being denied. And -- and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different....

    "Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it’d be productive for the Justice Department -- governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

    "You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing....

    "Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations....

    "We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?...

    "And then finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.... [A]t least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
  • On August 7, 2013, Obama appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, who asked him to comment on the Trayvon Martin case. The President replied:

    "Well, I think all of us were troubled by what happened.  And any of us who were parents can imagine the heartache that those parents went through. It doesn’t mean that Trayvon was a perfect kid -- none of us were. We were talking offstage -- when you’re a teenager, especially a teenage boy, you’re going to mess up, and you won’t always have the best judgment. But what I think all of us agree to is, is that we should have a criminal justice system that’s fair, that’s just. And what I wanted to try to explain was why this was a particularly sensitive topic for African American families, because a lot of people who have sons know the experience they had of being followed or being viewed suspiciously.

    "We all know that young African American men disproportionately have involvement in criminal activities and violence -- for a lot of reasons, a lot of it having to do with poverty, a lot of it having to do with disruptions in their neighborhoods and their communities, and failing schools and all those things.  And that’s no excuse, but what we also believe in is, is that people -- everybody -- should be treated fairly and the system should work for everyone."


Obama's Commitment to Racial Preferences

  • In 2006, then-Senator Obama lamented the “stubborn gap that remains between the living standards of black, Latino and white workers.” To address this, he proposed “completing the unfinished business of the civil rights movement—namely, enforcing nondiscrimination laws in such basic areas as employment, housing and education.” Added Obama at the time: “The government, through its prosecutors and its courts, should step in to make things right.”
  • During Obama's first term as President, Attorney General Eric Holder used the threat of “disparate-impact” lawsuits—founded on the premise that businesses could be held liable for racial bias if any of its policies caused whites and blacks to be hired, promoted, approved for loans, etc. at disproportionate rates—to strong-arm U.S. banks into loan set-asides (reserved exclusively for nonwhites), racial lending quotas, and other concessions. For example, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and SunTrust all agreed to adopt lower loan-approval standards for nonwhites. As of November 2012, Holder had already authorized at least five lending-discrimination suits, while opening another 30 investigations against banks. In response, the American Bankers Association—seeking to avoid additional hassles from the government—advised its 5,000 members to give a “second look” to rejected minority loan applicants, with an eye toward making “changes in underwriting standards.”
  • In 2012 Richard Cordray, head of the Obama administration's newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB], announced that his Bureau would join the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing & Urban Development in enforcing disparate-impact doctrine to protect “communities of color” from “unfair lending practices” in “mortgages, student loans, credit cards and auto loans,” and small-business loans.
  • In November 2012, shortly after Obama's re-election in November 2012, journalist Paul Sperry reported that the President, during his second term in office, would continue to aggressively try to close gaps between whites and minorities in such areas as credit scores, homeownership rates, test scores, and graduation rates. Obama's remedy for those gaps, wrote Sperry, would be “to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on 'disparate impact' complaints—a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences.”
  • Sperry further reported that CFPB examiners were slated to subject America's consumer credit reporting agencies—including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion—to federal review in the form of an “effects test” that would prevent minority credit-card applicants from being rejected more frequently than whites, or being charged higher interest rates than whites, regardless of their credit ratings.
  • Also according to Sperry, “Other targets of the administration's 'racial justice' juggernaut include: standardized academic testing, professional licensing examinations, employee background checks, voter ID requirements, student disciplinary codes, prison sentencing guidelines—you name it. The goal is to equalize outcomes based on race without regard for performance or merit.”
  • Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg concurred that President Obama was entirely committed to “aggressively pushing the disparate-impact approach to civil-rights enforcement” through which “the federal government insists that the numbers come out right—even if it means that policemen and firefighters cannot be tested, that companies should hire criminals, that loans must be made to the uncreditworthy, and that—I kid you not—whether pollution is acceptable depends on whether dangerous chemicals are spread in a racially balanced way.”
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute counsel Hans Bader reported that the Obama administration was “pressuring school districts not to suspend violent or disruptive black students if they [the districts] have already disciplined 'too many' black students.” In a similar spirit, Obama's Education Department was investigating a “disparate-impact” complaint that the NAACP had recently filed, alleging that the entrance exam used by selective New York City high schools illegally discriminated against African Americans.
  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama made reference to alleged efforts to suppress the votes of certain demographic groups, particularly low-income nonwhite minorities: “Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”


Claims of Discrimination Against Black Schoolchildren

In a February 25, 2012 speech to the organization 100 Black Men of Atlanta, Attorney General Eric Holder lamented the findings of a 2011 study of discipline patterns in Texas schools. Holder said the study showed that “83 percent of African American male students and 74 percent of Hispanic male students ended up in trouble and suspended for some period of time” -- as compared to 59% of white male students. “We’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled,” Holder stated. “This is, quite simply, unacceptable.… These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed.” After citing the Texas study, Holder added that “tellingly, 97 percent of all suspensions were discretionary and reflected the administrator’s discipline philosophy as much as the student’s behavior.” In his speech, Holder ignored data indicating that the different discipline rates were consistent with differences in actual schoolyard behavior.

Holder revisited this theme in January 2014, when he and Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued the first-ever national guidelines for discipline in public schools. These guidelines demanded that schools adhere, as an Associated Press (AP) report put it, "to the principle of fairness and equity in student discipline or face strong action if they don't." "[I]n our investigations," said the administration, "we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similarly situated white students. In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem." Holder, for his part, declared: "A routine school disciplinary infraction should land a student in the principal's office, not in a police precinct."

In particular, the Obama administration was troubled by the fact that:

  • Black students without disabilities were more than three times as likely as whites to be expelled or suspended.
  • Black students comprised more than a third of students suspended once, 44% of those suspended multiple times, and more than a third of those expelled.
  • Black and Hispanic students were more than half of those involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement.

“Too often, said Holder, "so-called zero-tolerance policies [which mandate uniform and swift punishment for such offenses as truancy, smoking, or carrying a weapon], however well intentioned they might be, make students feel unwelcome in their own schools; they disrupt the learning process. And they can have significant and lasting negative effects on the long-term well-being of our young people, increasing their likelihood of future contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems."

To address this matter, the Obama administration encouraged schools to:

  • ensure that all school personnel are trained in classroom management, conflict resolution and approaches to de-escalate classroom disruptions;
  • ensure that school personnel understand that they are responsible for administering routine student discipline instead of security or police officers;
  • draw clear distinctions about the responsibilities of school security personnel;
  • provide opportunities for school security officers to develop relationships with students and parents;
  • establish procedures on how to distinguish between disciplinary infractions appropriately handled by school officials compared with major threats to school safety; and
  • collect and monitor data that security or police officers take to ensure nondiscrimination.

As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams observes:

"The nation’s educators can avoid sanctions by adopting a racial quota system for student discipline. So as Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, predicts, 'school officials will either start disciplining students who shouldn’t be, or, more likely, will not discipline some students who ought to be.' I can imagine school administrators reasoning this way: 'Blacks are 20 percent of our student body, and 20 percent of suspensions this year have been of black students. In order to discipline another black student while maintaining our suspension quota, we will have to suspend some white students, whether they’re guilty or not.'"

Obama Says Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be “Expelled from Our Country”

  • Also during his second inaugural address, Obama emphasized his commitment to passing “comprehensive immigration reform” and the DREAM Act, both of which would include a path-to-citizenship for illegals currently residing in the United States: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”


Obama Says That People From Mexico "Did Not Cross the Border, The Border Crossed Them"

  • When outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is of Mexican heritage, formally stepped down from his post in early February 2013, Obama suggested that the Hispanic Cabinet member was more authentically American than the Pilgrims of New England: "His ancestors were here before the Mayflower set sail." The president then echoed a phrase common among Nativists who believe that lands belong to ethnicities rather than to countries: "[Salazar and] his family did not cross the border, the border crossed them. And that's why, when I needed somebody to lead Interior, I didn't have to look very far."


Americans' View of Race Relations Has Deteriorated Greatly During Obama Administration:
In June 2013, a poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal reported that 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks had a favorable opinion of race relations in the U.S.  At the beginning of Obama’s first term (4 and 1/2 years earlier, the corresponding figures were 79 percent and 63 percent.


Obama Speaks about America's Racial Injustice, Past and Present

In an August 23, 2013 speech at Binghamton University, Obama said:

  • “I think what we’ve also seen is that the legacy of discrimination—slavery, Jim Crow—has meant that some of the institutional barriers for success for a lot of groups still exist.  African American poverty in this country is still significantly higher than other groups.  Same is true for Latinos.  Same is true for Native Americans. And even if there weren’t active discrimination taking place right now—and obviously, we know that some discrimination still exists, although nothing like what existed 50 years ago—but let’s assume that we eliminated all discrimination magically, with a wand, and everybody had goodness in their heart.  You’d still have a situation in which there are a lot of folks who are poor and whose families have become dysfunctional because of a long legacy of poverty, and live in neighborhoods that are run down and schools that are underfunded and don’t have a strong property tax base.  And it would still be harder for young people born into those communities to succeed than those who were born elsewhere.”


Obama Marks the 50
th Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” Speech by Emphasizing America's Racial Inequity

On August 28, 2013, Obama said:

  • “To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency. Whether it's by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all in the criminal justice system and not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails....

    “Yes, there have been examples of success within black America that would have been unimaginable a half-century ago. But as has already been noted, black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white employment, Latino unemployment close behind. The gap in wealth between races has not lessened, it's grown.”


Obama Commutes the Sentences of Eight Crack-Cocaine Offenders Convicted under "Unfair System"

  • On December 19, 2013, President Obama commuted the prison sentences of 8 (nonwhite) individuals who had been imprisoned for more than 15 years apiece for crack cocaine offenses committed at a time when the penalties for the possession of crack, a drug most often used by poor blacks, were approximately 100 times harsher than the penalties for possession of powder cocaine, whose users were typically affluent whites. (In 2010 Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which narrowed the disparity of those penalties considerably.)

    One of the individuals whose sentences Obama commuted was a first cousin of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, one of the president’s most loyal supporters. Patrick's cousin, Reynolds Allen Wintersmith Jr., had been sentenced to life in prison in 1994 for cocaine possession and conspiracy to distribute cocaine and its products on behalf of a gang known as the Gangster Disciples.

    Said
    Obama in a statement: “I am commuting the prison terms of eight men and women who were sentenced under an unfair system. Commuting the sentences of these eight Americans is an important step toward restoring fundamental ideals of justice and fairness.... If they had been sentenced under the current law, many of them would have already served their time and paid their debt to society. Instead, because of a disparity in the law that is now recognized as unjust, they remain in prison, separated from their families and their communities, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.”

    In addition to the 8 sentences he commuted, Obama also pardoned 13 individuals convicted of crack cocaine offenses.

    Further, Obama urged Congress to approve additional sentencing-reform measures to ensure “that our justice system keeps its basic promise of equal treatment for all.”


Federal Hate-Crime Charge Against White Perpetrator of the "Knockout Game"

  • In the fall of 2013, media outlets like Breitbart News, Truth Revolt, and Fox News reported extensively on the growing prevalence of the so-called "knockout game," whereby groups of black teenagers were targeting defenseless and unsuspecting white, Jewish, and Asian pedestrians and blindsiding them with roundhouse punches designed to render the victims unconscious. Accomplices to the perpetrators commonly captured these attacks on video and posted them, as a form of celebration, to the website YouTube. Hundreds of these knockout-game incidents had occurred in cities nationwide since 2010. Many had resulted in serious injuries, and in several cases the victims had died.

    The Obama administration, however, never took action against any of the perpetrators until December 2013, when Obama's Justice Department filed a federal hate-crimes charge against a 27-year-old Texas white man who targeted a 79-year-old black man with a "knockout-game" attack (which he also videotaped and subsequently boasted about to strangers).


Obama Says Racism Causes Some Voters to Dislike Him


In the January 27, 2014 issue of the New Yorker magazine, President Obama said: “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.” “Now, the flip side of it,” added Obama, “is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president.”

Obama Lauds Al Sharpton and Warns That Voting Rights for Blacks Are in Peril

On April 11, 2014, President Obama spoke at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York and said to Sharpton: “Of course, one thing that has not changed is your commitment to problems of civil rights for everybody and opportunity for all people.”

Focusing also on the issue of Republican proposals to tighten ID requirements for voting in political elections, Obama claimed that such measures would unfairly ­make it more difficult for millions of Americans to cast their ballots. Said Obama, to thunderous applause: “America did not stand up and did not march and did not sacrifice to gain the right to vote for themselves and others only to see it denied to their kids and their grandchildren. The stark, simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today.”

Obama Denounces the Death Penalty and Laments the "Significant Problems" Associated with the Execution of a Particular, Remorseless Black Murderer

On April 20, 2014, a 38-year-old, black Oklahoma man named Clayton Lockett was executed by lethal injection because he had raped and murdered a 19-year-old girl named Stephanie Neiman fifteen years earlier. The injection procedure was botched, however, and it took a full 43 minutes after the drug was administered before Lockett died. A TulsaWorld.com report provided background on the crime that had led to this execution:

Stephanie Neiman ... was dropping off a friend at a Perry [Oklahoma] residence on June 3, 1999, the same evening Clayton Lockett and two accomplices decided to pull a home invasion robbery there. Neiman fought Lockett when he tried to take the keys to her truck.

The men beat her and used duct tape to bind her hands and cover her mouth. Even after being kidnapped and driven to a dusty country road, Neiman didn’t back down when Lockett asked if she planned to contact police.

The men had also beaten and kidnapped Neiman’s friend along with Bobby Bornt, who lived in the residence, and Bornt’s 9-month-old baby....

Neiman was forced to watch as Lockett’s accomplice, Shawn Mathis, spent 20 minutes digging a shallow grave in a ditch beside the road. Her friends saw Neiman standing in the ditch and heard a single shot.

Lockett returned to the truck because the gun had jammed. He later said he could hear Neiman pleading, “Oh God, please, please” as he fixed the shotgun. The men could be heard “laughing about how tough Stephanie was” before Lockett shot Neiman a second time.

He ordered Mathis to bury her, despite the fact that Mathis informed him Stephanie was still alive.

A few days after Lockett's execution, a foreign reporter raised the issue with Obama and compared America's use of the death penalty to that of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. After conceding that the death penalty might be appropriate in a very “terrible” crime such as “mass killing” or “the killings of children,” Obama went on to denounce the capital punishment generally:

"The application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems — racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence. And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied. And this situation in Oklahoma I think just highlights some of the significant problems there.

"So I’ll be discussing with Eric Holder and others, you know — you know, to get me an analysis of what steps have been taken, not just in this particular instance, but more broadly in this area. I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions around these issues."

Obama Speaks about White Police Officer's Killing of Black Teen

On August 14, 2014, Obama addressed the riots that had been raging in recent days in response to the August 9 kiling -- by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri -- of an unarmed 18-year-old black male named Michael Brown in circumstances that were not yet clear. While he called for "unity" and calm, the president also issued a sternly worded reprimand to the police:

"This morning, I received a thorough update on the situation from Attorney General Eric Holder, who’s been following and been in communication with his team. I’ve already tasked the Department of Justice and the FBI to independently investigate the death of Michael Brown, along with local officials on the ground. The Department of Justice is also consulting with local authorities about ways that they can maintain public safety without restricting the right of peaceful protest and while avoiding unnecessary escalation. I made clear to the attorney general that we should do what is necessary to help determine exactly what happened and to see that justice is done....

"Of course, it’s important to remember how this started. We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old, and his family will never hold Michael in their arms again. And when something like this happens, the local authorities, including the police, have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death and how they are protecting the people in their communities. There is never an excuse for violence against police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. And here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground."

On August 18, Obama said: "In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear. Part of the ongoing challenge of perfecting our union has involved dealing with communities that feel left behind." And in light of the fact that some police in Ferguson were employing tanks and riot gear in order to deal with the looters, Obama stated: "There is no excuse for excessive force by police.... I think it's probably useful for us to review how the funding has gone, how local law enforcement has used grant dollars, to make sure that what they're purchasing [such as military equipment] is stuff that they actually need. There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don't want those lines blurred."

Al Sharpton Has Become Obama's Chief Advisor on Racial Issues

In August 2014, Politico.com published a feature story titled, “How Al Sharpton Became Obama's Go-To Man on Race.” The piece stated that “Sharpton not only visits the White House frequently, he often texts or emails with senior Obama officials such as [Valerie] Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder.” It quoted Jesse Jackson saying, “I’ve known Al since he was 12 years old, and he’s arrived at the level he always wanted to arrive at, which is gratifying. He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House, he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” Sharpton himself, meanwhile, offered his own assessment of how he had bonded with Obama: “The relationship evolved over time.... The key for him was seeing that I wasn’t insincere, that I actually believed in the stuff I was talking about.”

In a subsequent New York Times piece, Obama was quoted as having said of Sharpton: “You can do business with that guy.”


DIVIDING AMERICANS BY GENDER
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Falsely Claims That Women Are Underpaid

  • “For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents,” said an Obama campaign publication in 2008. “A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men.” To rectify this, said the campaign, “the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.”
  • Nine days after his inauguration, President Obama honored one of his campaign pledges by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law making it easier for women to sue employers for pay discrimination. Said the President: “It is a story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every $1 [that] men earn, women of color even less, which means that today in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income, and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime”


Obama Speaks at White House Event on Women and the Economy

  • At an April 6, 2012 White House event on women and the economy, President Obama said: “When more women are bringing home the bacon, but bringing home less of it than men who are doing the same work, that weakens families, it weakens communities, it's tough on our kids, it weakens our entire economy.”


Obama Speaks about the Need for “Pay Equity”

  • On April 17, 2012, President Obama stated that “women who worked full-time [the previous year] earned only 77 percent of what their male counterparts did.” “The pay gap was even greater for African American and Latina women,” added Obama, “with African American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man.”


The “Gender Pay Gap” Is a Fiction

  • President Obama's claim that women were underpaid (in comparison to men) by American employers was untrue. As longtime employment lawyer William Farrell, who served as a board member of the National Organization for Women from 1970 to 1973, explains in his 2005 book Why Men Earn More, the gender pay gap can be explained entirely by the fact that women as a group tend, to a much greater degree than men, to make employment choices that involve certain tradeoffs; i.e., choices that suppress incomes but, by the same token, afford tangible lifestyle advantages that are highly valued.
  • For example, women tend to pursue careers in fields that are non-technical and do not involve the hard (as opposed to the social) sciences; fields that do not require a large amount of continuing education in order to keep pace with new developments or innovations; fields that offer a high level of physical safety; fields where the work is performed indoors as opposed to outdoors (where bad weather can make working conditions poor); fields that offer a pleasant and socially dynamic working environment; fields typified by lower levels of emotional strife; fields that offer desirable shifts or flexible working hours; fields or jobs that require fewer working hours per week or fewer working days per year; and fields where employees can “check out” at the end of the day and not need to “take their jobs home with them.”
  • Moreover, Farrell notes, women as a group tend to be less willing to commute long distances, to travel extensively for work-related duties, or to relocate geographically in order to take a job. In addition, they tend to have fewer years of uninterrupted experience in their current jobs, and they are far more likely to leave the work force for extended periods in order to attend to family-related matters such as raising children. During the course of their overall work lives, men accumulate an extra 5 to 9 years on the job as compared to their female counterparts, and each of those additional years translates to approximately 3 or 4 percent more in annual pay.
  • When all of the above variables are factored into the equation, the gender pay gap disappears entirely. When men and women work at jobs where their titles and their responsibilities are equivalent, they are paid exactly the same.


Obama Himself Has Paid His Female Staffers Less than His Male Staffers

  • The women who worked on Obama’s Senate staff during 2007-2008 earned 78 cents for every dollar his male staffers were paid (annual salaries of $44,953.21 for the women, vs. $57,425 for the men). These data, however, did not take into account such variables as job position, experience, or education—all of which are factors that could influence pay. Thus the raw numbers did not constitute evidence that the women were being discriminated against—though by the (invalid) standard which Obama had applied to all other American employers, the numbers were indeed indicative of discrimination.
  • According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees in the Obama White House earned a median annual salary of $60,000, approximately 18% less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).


“The War on Women”: O
bama Supports Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke's Demand that Insurance Providers Cover the Costs of Contraception and Abortion

  • On February 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University and an experienced women's-rights activist, testified about Georgetown’s policy on contraception during an unofficial hearing that was led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Fluke argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance policies, even at religious institutions that objected to contraception on moral grounds. After radio host Rush Limbaugh harshly criticized Miss Fluke for her comments, President Obama called the young woman to express his support. In an interview with CBS News, Fluke reported that Mr. Obama had thanked her for “helping to amplify the voices of women across the country,” and had expressed concern “that I was okay.”
  • This incident laid the groundwork for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to accuse the Republican Party of waging a “war on women,” a hallmark of which was Republicans' refusal to mandate that all health insurance plans cover the cost of women's contraception and abortion services.
  • In January 2012, the Obama administration issued an edict mandating that religious hospitals, schools, charities and other health and social service providers provide “free” contraception, abortifacient pills, sterilizations, and abortion services in their insurance plans—even if doing so violated their moral codes and the teachings of their churches.


Obama Says the Augusta National Golf Club Should Allow Women to Attend

  • In April 2012, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney informed the media that President Obama believed that women should be admitted for membership to the all-male Augusta National Golf Club.


Obama Campaign Urges Female Voters to “Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend on It”

  • On October 2, 2012, the Obama campaign posted an e-card, targeting women, on its Tumblr site. It read: “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” Just hours after bloggers began criticizing the ad, the campaign deleted the e-card.


Obama Mocks Romney's Reference to “Binders Full of Women”

  • During an October 9, 2012 presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney described how, when he began his tenure as governor of Massachusetts in 2003, he sought to increase the number of women in his cabinet: “I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I went to my staff, and I said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are all men?' They said, 'Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well, gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified?'” This, explained Romney, led to a “concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members” of his cabinet. “I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' And they brought us whole binders full of women” (i.e., women's resumes).
  • At a campaign rally in Iowa the following day, Obama made a disparaging reference to Romney's remark: “We don't have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now,” said Obama. “When young women graduate, they should get equal pay for equal work. That should be a simple question to answer.” He repeated a similar assertion later that day at a campaign event in Ohio.


Obama Says Women Are Underpaid

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama emphasized his belief that female workers in America are not treated or paid fairly: “Our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.”

Obama Laments America's Historical and Continuing Injustice Toward Women

In a December 4, 2013 speech on the U.S. economy, President Obama said: "It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.... It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women will have more tools to fight pay discrimination."

Obama Says Women Are Underpaid

During his State of the Union address in January 2014, Obama said: "Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work."

Depicting a Supreme Court Decision As "War on Women"

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that some companies with religious objections could avoid the Obamacare mandate requiring employers to provide their workers with health insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortifacients.

The Obama administration responded to the decision by characterizing it as anti-woman. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said: "President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. Today's decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies."


KEY OBAMA APPOINTEES: REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT'S RADICALISM
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama's Values and Political Agendas Are Reflected in the Individuals Whom He Has Appointed to Key Posts in His Administration

  • Alikhan, Arif (Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development): When he was Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the LAPD's efforts to monitor activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas were known to exist, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.
  • Berwick, Donald (Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services): Opposed to free-market health-care systems, Berwick favors a government-run, single-payer model. He is particularly fond of Great Britain’s government-run National Health Services (NHS) and its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), a body of bureaucrats who evaluate the relative costs and benefits of various medical therapies in order to determine what procedures the NHS will cover. In Berwick's calculus, America's health-care system traditionally has been inferior to Britain's because of the free-market elements present in the U.S. system.
  • Bloom, Ron (Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy): Asserting that “the free market is nonsense,” Bloom supports federal-government control of the American healthcare system. “We kind of agree with Mao,” says Bloom, “that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
  • Brooks, Rosa (Undersecretary for Defense Policy): In a September 2006 L.A. Times column, Brooks referred to President Bush as America’s “torturer-in-chief,” and she suggested that Islamist terror attacks against the U.S. were manifestations of a backlash against America’s foreign transgressions. “Today, the chickens are coming home to roost,” she said.
  • Browner, Carol (Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change): Browner formerly served as a “commissioner” of the Socialist International, the umbrella group for 170 “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. The Socialist International's “organizing document” cites capitalism as the cause of “devastating crises,” “mass unemployment,” “imperialist expansion,” and “colonial exploitation” worldwide. Browner also worked on the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which contends that “the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”
  • Chu, Steven (Secretary of Energy): In 2008, Chu advocated steep rises in gasoline prices as a means of coaxing Americans into being more fuel-efficient and purchasing green energy cars: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” (i.e., approximately $10 per gallon).
  • Cole, James (Deputy Attorney General): After 9/11, Cole contended that prosecutions related to terrorism should be adjudicated in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals. Further, he legally represented Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family, in a lawsuit filed by Motley Rice on behalf of 9/11 families. Prince Naif headed the terror-aligned Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. Between 2002 and 2004, the Treasury Department concluded that 13 branches of that Foundation had ties to al Qaeda; in 2008, Treasury extended the terror designation to the entire Foundation.
  • Dunn, Anita (White House Communications Director): Dunn has cited former Chinese dictator Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers.”
  • Emanuel, Rahm (Chief of Staff): In December 2008 it was reported that Emanuel, cognizant of the fact that the economic recession in which America was mired presented an opportunity for the Democratic Party to enact sweeping legislation under the guise of an economic recovery plan, had said the following in a candid moment: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste—and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
  • Freeman, Charles: (Nominated for Chair of the National Intelligence Council, but withdrew from consideration in March 2009): In a 2002 speech, Freeman said: “Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were shocked by the level of ignorance and antipathy displayed by Americans toward them and toward Islam after September 11. The connection between Islam and suicide bombing is a false connection. Kamikaze pilots were not Muslims…. And what of America's lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine themselves, we should examine ourselves.” In 2007, Freeman said the U.S. had provoked Islamic terrorism by failing to put an end to “the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that is about to mark its fortieth anniversary and shows no sign of ending.”
  • Geithner, Timothy (Secretary of the Treasury): During Geithner’s Senate confirmation hearings, it was learned that he had failed to pay $43,000 in federal self-employment taxes over a four-year period. He subsequently paid the amount in full, stating that he had been guilty only of making “careless” and “unintentional” errors. In March 2009, the Associated Press reported that Geithner would soon “unveil a series of rules and measures … to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes.” Also in March, Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee that President Obama intended to propose legislation to limit the ability of American companies and high earners to shelter foreign earnings from U.S. taxes.
  • Holder, Eric (Attorney General): Holder was deeply involved in former President Clinton's pardons of Puerto Rican FALN terrorists and Marc Rich (a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, and had then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations). He also has condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment”; has sought to try islamic terrorists in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals; has filed suit against several states that had passed laws designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration; and has opposed efforts to purge voter rolls of ineligible names, or to enact voter-ID laws.
  • Holdren, John (Assistant to the President for Science and Technology): Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren once called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries.
  • Johnsen, Dawn (Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel): Johnsen views the United States generally as a nation rife with all manner of injustice, including racial discrimination against nonwhites. In an April 2008 article she lamented “the devastatingly disproportionate rates of imprisonment of racial minorities.” In 2008 she characterized the War on Terror as an ill-advised brainstorm that President Bush had undertaken impetuously as an overreaction to a single act of terrorism. Moreover, she believes that nominees for the federal judiciary should automatically be disqualified from consideration if they subscribe to the concept of Constitutional originalism (as opposed to the notion that the Constitution is a malleable “living document”).
  • Jones, Van (Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation): In 2004 this self-identified revolutionary communist signed the 9/11 Truth Statement, which called for a federal investigation into whether President Bush had been privy to advance knowledge of—or perhaps had colluded in—the destruction of the World Trade Center.
  • Koh, Harold (Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department): Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, a concept arguing in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. This perspective holds that the world's most challenging problems are too complex and deep-rooted for any single country to address effectively on its own. The solution, says Koh, is for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides those of any particular government.
  • Lloyd, Mark (Diversity Chief of the Federal Communications Commission): Lloyd seeks to shut down, or at least weaken, talk radio—on the pretext that doing so would promote “diversity” and the interests of “local” populations.
  • Medina, Eliseo (National Latino Advisory Council): Medina once served as an Honorary Chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  • Mogahed, Dalia (Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships): Mogahed views the United States as a nation rife with discrimination against Muslims. She contends that the Western view of Sharia Law is “oversimplified,” and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associate Islamic Law with “gender justice.”
  • Muñoz, Cecilia (Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Director of the Domestic Policy Council): By Muñoz's reckoning, America is a nation rife with white racism and bigotry. On one occasion, she told The Detroit News: “It gets old. We're [Latinos] tired of being treated as if we don't belong here.” Muñoz calls for immigration reform that would create a clear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and describes organized opposition to this agenda as a “wave of hate.”
  • Napolitano, Janet (Secretary of Department of Homeland Security): From her earliest days as the head of DHS, Napolitano broke with the Department’s tradition of warning the American public about potential terrorist threats. Instead, Napolitano began referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”
  • Perez, Thomas (Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division): In June 2010, J. Christian Adams, a five-year Department of Justice (DOJ) veteran, resigned to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ's dismissal of a case involving two Philadelphia-based members of the New Black Panther Party who had intimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats of violence on Election Day, 2008. Adams cited Thomas Perrelli (the Associate Attorney General) and Thomas Perez as the two DOJ officials most responsible for dropping the case. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Perez and other Obama DOJ officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
  • Posner, Michael (Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor): In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Posner asserted that America's treatment of Middle Easterners was akin to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Particularly appalling to Posner was the government's practice of holding suspected terrorists such as al Qaeda operatives Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi in military detention indefinitely and without access to legal counsel. From the time of Padilla’s arrest in 2002, Posner was deeply engaged in the defendant's case and filed the first amicus brief on his behalf in July 2003. In May 2010, Posner headed the American delegation to a “U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue,” where he repeatedly made reference to the recently enacted Arizona immigration-law-enforcement bill as an example of America’s own human-rights failures―calling it “a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination.”
  • Power, Samantha (Director for Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council): Power has said that America’s relationship with Israel “has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics”―thereby provoking terrorist attacks upon America from the Muslim world.
  • Rice, Susan (Ambassador to the United Nations): Downplaying the aggressive, faith-based intentions of radical Islamists, Rice contends that terrorism is primarily “a threat borne of both oppression and deprivation.” In the aftermath of the deadly September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Rice went on five separate news programs and falsely stated that the attacks were a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure Internet video that was critical of the Prophet Mohammed. Soon thereafter, it was learned that the American consulate in Benghazi had been attacked and threatened at least 13 times before the deadly September 11 attack, and that the Obama administration had failed to provide proper security at the facility.
  • Solis, Hilda (Secretary of Labor): Solis firmly embraces President Obama's class-warfare mindset. In April 2012, for example, she delivered a speech at Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where she stated that imposing higher taxes on the wealthy was justified: “It’s about fairness in the workplace; it’s about fairness in education; and it’s about fairness in terms of what services are provided by government.... [T]hose that can afford it, the billionaires and millionaires ... want to pay more because they know it’s their obligation!”
  • Sunstein, Cass (Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs): Sunstein's views on taxes are wholly consistent with those of President Obama. Wries Sunstein: “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
  • Sutley, Nancy (White House Council on Environmental Quality): On December 15, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama appointed Sutley to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Sutley and the CEQ came under scrutiny in 2009 when it was learned that Van Jones, President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” and also a member of the CEQ, was a communist with a twenty-year history of radical activism. Sutley initially had championed Jones as “a strong voice for green jobs,” but once the scandal snowballed and eventually forced Jones to resign, Sutley issued only a short statement on Jones' “hard work” and dedication to green jobs and renewable resources.
  • Tauscher, Ellen (Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security): When she was a congresswoman, Tauscher opposed efforts to create any new nuclear weapons and withheld funding from the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which was designed to secure America's aging nuclear stockpile. Not only were missile-defense systems “untested,” in Tauscher's view, but they were unnecessary—because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden did not yet possess nuclear weapons. In March 2009 Tauscher excoriated advocates of missile defense for “running around with their hair on fire warning about a long-range threat from Iran that does not exist.” Tauscher believes that in order to discourage aggressive dictators from developing nuclear weapons, the United States should disarm itself of its own nuclear stockpiles. In February 2009 she told the Munich Security Conference: “The U.S. would, without question, be more secure in a world free of nuclear weapons. The real question is whether pursuit of such a goal is in our security interests. I believe it is.”
  • Trumka, Richard (Member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board): This powerful socialist labor leader helped rescind a founding AFL-CIO rule that banned Communist Party members and loyalists from leadership positions within the Federation and its unions. As a result, Communist Party delegates became free to secure positions of power in the Federation. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) declared itself “in complete accord” with the “very positive” new policy. In the late 1990s, Trumka twice invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a congressional committee investigation of a corruption and money-laundering scandal.
  • Warren, Elizabeth (Special Assistant in charge of organizing and establishing a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau): In 2009 Warren appeared in Michael Moore's anti-capitalist film titled Capitalism: A Love Story. In a taped interview, the filmmaker told Warren that “capitalism in and of itself, at least the capitalism we know now, is immoral, it’s not democratic, and worst of all, it doesn’t work...” Warren did not disagree, replying: “But we made up these rules, and the rules are of men, of people. We pick what the rules are. The rules have not been written for ordinary families, for the people who actually do the work. We have to rewrite those rules.” When Moore then blamed the greed of “corporate America” for allegedly having tricked people into borrowing money they could not repay, Warren said: “Its a big part of what happened, and then just layer in on top of that: 'Can we sell them more credit cards that are loaded with tricks and traps?'” In April 2012, Warren became embroiled in controversy when it was learned that during the 1990s she had falsely identified herself as part-Native American in an effort to bolster her chances of being hired by a university seeking to improve its “diversity” hiring record.
  • West, Tony (Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division): In 2001, West joined the legal defense team of John Walker Lindh, an American Muslim convert and a member of al Qaeda, who had taken up arms against U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 9/11. In July 2002, after Lindh signed a plea deal that would send him to jail for up to 20 years, West stated that Lindh “is not a terrorist,” but a young man of great “intellectual curiosity.” “He’s so intellectually driven,” said West, “and he has a wide variety of interests—from English literature to World History to Islamic studies. I truly believe John will have a lot to offer after his incarceration, and I believe John’s faith has led him to the same conclusion.” On a later occasion, West argued that “defending the despised,” in this case Lindh, was akin to the founding father John Adams’ 1770 defense of the British officers who had participated in the Boston Massacre.


THE DREADFUL ECONOMY
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Pledges to Improve Economy During His First Term

  • When President Obama took office in 2009, he said that he “will be held accountable” for his actions and their consequences. “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition,” he said.


Below Is a Snapshot of the U.S. Economy Under President Obama, As of September 2012

  • 23,136,000 Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have stopped looking for work.
  • 12,544,000 Americans are unemployed.
  • 8,031,000 Americans are underemployed, working part-time but seeking full-time work.
  • 5,033,000 workers have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.
  • 1,043,000 construction jobs have been lost since President Obama took office.
  • 582,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Obama took office.
  • The unemployment rate when President Obama took office was 7.8%. Under Obama, the country experienced 43 consecutive months of unemployment above 8% (though the administration predicted that the January 2009 passage of the stimulus bill would keep unemployment from ever reaching 8%, and would reduce it to 5.4% by 2012).
  • The nation's labor-force participation rate is 63.5%, the lowest level since 1981.
  • Had the labor-force participation rate remained steady since President Obama took office, the official unemployment rate would now be 11.2%.
  • The government's official unemployment rate does not include those unemployed individuals who have entirely given up looking for work (and thus have dropped out of the job market); nor does it include the underemployed—i.e., those with part-time jobs who rare seeking full-time employment. The most significant unemployment-related statistic, known as the U-6 figure, does factor these two important categories of individuals into the equation. When these workers are included, the U-6 un/underemployment rate stood at 14.7% as of September 2012.
  • Between January 2009 and September 2012, median gasoline prices nationwide more than doubled, from $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon. (Note: In 2008, Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, advocated steep rises in gasoline prices as a means of coaxing Americans into being more fuel-efficient and purchasing green energy cars: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”—i.e., approximately $10 per gallon. In March 2011, Chu reiterated his support for high gasoline prices.)
  • Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama has claimed credit for “creating 4.5 million new jobs.” But “jobs created” is only half of the equation; the other half is “jobs lost.” When both figures are considered, the Obama presidency has overseen a net jobs gain of just 325,000. As Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler puts it, “Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president since World War II.”


Weakest Economic Recovery Since the 1880s

  • In October 2012, economist John B. Taylor reported that of all the American economic recoveries that have followed previous financial crises, the current recovery is the weakest since the 1880s. The previous 7 recoveries during that 130-year time span were, on average, 4 times stronger than the Obama recovery.
  • In August 2013, the Weekly Standard reported: "New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the 'recovery,' after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.  During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama 'recovery' began."


Between Obama's Inauguration and 2012, the Following Economic Developments Took Place

  • Median household income fell from $54,983 to $50,964.
  • Disposable income per capita in fell from $33,229 to $32,677.
  • The median number of weeks of unemployment for a jobless worker in January 2009 was 10.7. That figure reached a peak of 25.0 in June 2010. As of August 2012, it stood at 18.0.
  • The number of people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps) in January 2009 was 31,983,716. By June 2012 it was 46,670,373.


Black Unemployment Under Obama

  • As of July 2012, the unemployment rate for black Americans stood at 14.4%, compared to 7.4% for whites and 11% for Hispanics. For black youth, ages 16-19, the unemployment rate was a staggering 39.3%—nearly double the 20.9% figure for whites in the same age group.


Obama Called President Bush's Debt “Irresponsible” and “Unpatriotic”

  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama derided George W. Bush for having added, “by his lonesome,” some $4 trillion to the national debt during his eight years as president. “That's irresponsible,” he said. “It's unpatriotic”


Obama Pledged to Cut Annual Deficit in Half, but Instead Presided over Record Debt

  • During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation. We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt—one in every ten taxpayer dollars.... That's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficits we inherited by half, by the end of my first term in office.... I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay. And that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
  • The annual deficit in 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, was $482 billion.
  • When Obama took office in January 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. By the time of the Democratic National Convention in September 2012, it was $16 trillion. In short, under Obama's watch, the debt had grown by $5.4 trillion in three years and eight months.
  • According to the U.S. Treasury, America's government debt climbed by more than $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2012, meaning that the federal government had borrowed an additional $10,855 for each household in the United States during the year. This brought the nation's total debt to approximately $136,690 per household.
  • For every $7 in federal revenues in 2012, the government spent $10.95.
  • In July 2012, the White House delivered its 10-year budget forecast to Congress. This forecast projected $42.6 trillion in spending over the ensuing decade, and a federal debt that would grow to $25.4 trillion by 2022 (nearly $1 trillion in additional debt, each and every year)


Treasury Secretary Geithner Acknowledges that Obama's Debt-Laden Budget Is “Unsustainable”

  • On February 17, 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed to the Senate Budget Committee that President Obama's budget proposal would create a “very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time.” In the Budget Committee hearing, ranking Republican Senator Jeff Sessions asked Geithner about the effect of Obama’s newly proposed budget on the economy, specifically as it related to the increasing percentage of debt as related to gross domestic product. Geithner’s response was a stark contradiction of Obama's pledge that “we will not be adding more to the national debt.” Said Geithner: “You’re absolutely right that with the President’s plan, even if Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and reduce those deficits to 3 percent of GDP over the next five years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time.”


The Stimulus Bill's Massive Wastefulness

  • Just a few days after Barack Obama was elected President, the left-wing billionaire financier George Soros stated: “I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets—because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion-dollar range....” Soon thereafter, as one of the first priorities of his presidency, Obama pressured Congress to pass a monumental $787 billion economic-stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or AARA) whose text was 1,071 pages long­—and which few, if any, legislators in the Democrat-dominated Congress read before voting on it.
  • Obama stressed the urgency of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment, so as to forestall any further harm to the U.S. economy. But after the bill was passed by Congress on February 13, it sat on the President’s desk for three days before it was signed, as the Obamas were away on a family holiday.
  • Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell made the following observations about the hasty manner in which the stimulus bill was passed: “The urgency with which [the Obama administration] has rushed through a monumental spending bill, whose actual spending will not be completed even after 2010, ought to set off alarm bells among those who are not in thrall to the euphoria of Obama's presidency. The urgency was real, even if the reason given was phony. President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, let slip a valuable clue when he said that a crisis should not go to waste, that a crisis is an opportunity to do things that you could not do otherwise. Think about the utter cynicism of that. During a crisis, a panicked public will let you get away with things you couldn't get away with otherwise. A corollary of that is that you had better act quickly while the crisis is at hand, without Congressional hearings or public debates about what you are doing. Above all, you must act before the economy begins to recover on its own.... That would undermine, if not destroy, a golden opportunity to restructure the American economy in ways that would allow politicians to micro-manage other sectors of the economy the way they have micro-managed the housing market into disaster.”
  • One of the stimulus bill’s most significant provisions was its repeal of the essentials of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the welfare-reform legislation passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, which reduced the welfare rolls by two-thirds. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who helped write the ’96 law, said that under the Obama plan “the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare.” By promising bonuses to states that put more people on welfare, the Obama plan reversed the incentives created by the 1996 legislation.
  • According to a Heritage Foundation report, 32% of the new stimulus bill—or an average of $6,700 in “new means-tested welfare spending” for every poor person in the U.S.—was earmarked for social-welfare programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; Medicaid; food stamps; the Women, Infants, and Children food program; public housing; Section 8 housing; the Community Development Block Grant; the Social Services Block Grant; Head Start; and the Earned Income Tax Credit).
  • Added the Heritage Foundation report: “But this welfare spending is only the tip of the iceberg. The bill sets in motion another $523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks.... [T]he total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion.... In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009. This one-year explosion in welfare spending is, by far, the largest in U.S. history…. Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will [be] $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.”
  • In May 2011, university economists Timothy Conley and Bill Dupor published an exhaustive study concluding that that AARA (i.e. the stimulus bill) had “created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs.” Added the study: “State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.”
  • In December 2009, Obama outlined yet another set of multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals while explaining that America must continue to “spend our way out of this recession.”


Contrast to President Reagan

  • In 1981 President Ronald Reagan also inherited a severe recession in which unemployment rose to 10.8% in November 1982. But as economist Peter Morici notes, Reagan “put in place a very different set of stimulus measures—emphasizing private-sector leadership.” In the fourth year of Reagan's first term (1984), the quarterly economic growth rates were 8.5%, 7.9%, 6.9%, and 5.8%—figures that dwarf the corresponding numbers under Obama.


Printing Money out of Thin Air: “Quantitative Easing”

  • In September 2012, the Federal Reserve announced that it would purchase each month some $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities bonds (in addition to $45 billion in Treasury bonds) under a new “stimulus program” known as QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3), and would continue to do so until the U.S. unemployment rate was reduced to 7%. Forecasts from 52 economists for the ultimate size of the program ranged from $250 billion to $2 trillion.
  • In two prior rounds of Quantitative Easing, the Federal Reserve purchased $2.3 trillion in mortgage and government debt in an effort to push down borrowing costs.
  • Quantitative Easing invariably erodes the value of the dollar and eventually results in steep inflation.


Credit Rating Agencies Downgrade U.S. Credit Rating

  • Dagong Global Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating: Based in Beijing, Dagong Global Credit Rating is a relative newcomer to the credit rating industry. In July 2010 it published its first report on global sovereign debt ratings, and assigned the U.S. a less-than-stellar rating of AA. In November 2010, after the Federal Reserve had launched its second round of quantitative easing—dubbed “QE2”—in which the Fed purchased $600 billion worth of treasury securities, Dagong, warning that QE2 would erode the value of the dollar, downgraded the U.S. credit rating again, to A+.
  • Weiss Ratings Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating: Weiss Ratings is a small credit-rating agency based in Jupiter, Florida. In April 2011 Weiss—critical of the Obama administration's inability to reduce the country's annual budget deficit—released its first-ever ratings of the sovereign debt of 47 countries, giving the U.S. a debt rating of C, or “fair.” In mid-July 2011, Weiss lowered that to “C-minus,” or the Standard & Poor's equivalent of one notch above “junk” status.
  • Egan Jones Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating: In July 2011, the independent credit-research firm Egan Jones (one of 10 firms the Securities and Exchange Commission recognizes as a rating organization) downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+, citing concerns over “the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending.”
  • Standard & Poor's Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating: In August 2011, Standard & Poor's, one of the big three ratings firms, downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+, citing great concern over the country's skyrocketing national debt. “It’s always possible the rating will come back, but we don’t think it’s coming back anytime soon,” said David Beers, head of S&P’s government debt rating unit.
  • Egan Jones Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating Again: On April 7, 2012, Egan Jones downgraded the U.S. credit rating for a second time, from AA+ to AA, again citing concerns over the sustainability of America's public debt. The firm had previously reduced America from AAA to AA+ in July 2011, just before Standard & Poor's did the same. “Without some structural changes soon, restoring credit quality will become increasingly difficult,” Egan Jones warned. The firm added that there was a 1.2% probability of U.S. default in the next 12 months. It also cited the fact that America's total debt, which was equal to its total GDP, was rising and would likely reach 112% of the GDP by 2014.
  • Egan Jones Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating a Third Time: On September 14, 2012, Egan Jones downgraded its rating on U.S. government debt for a second time in 5 months, from AA to AA-, stating that the Federal Reserve's plans to try to stimulate the economy by purchasing mortgage bonds would weaken the value of the dollar and cause prices for oil and other commodities to rise.
  • Moody's Threatens to Downgrade U.S. Credit Rating: On September 11, 2012, Moody's Investors Service said that it would probably lower its AAA rating on U.S. government debt unless congressional leaders could strike a budget deal in the coming months to bring down the country's annual deficit. “If those negotiations lead to specific policies that produce a stabilization and then downward trend in the ratio of federal debt to GDP over the medium term, the rating will likely be affirmed,” Moody's said in a press release. “If those negotiations fail to produce such policies, however, Moody's would expect to lower the rating, probably to Aa1.”


OBAMA AND TAXES
(Return to Table of Contents)

Raising Capital Gains Taxes for Purposes of “Fairness”

  • In an April 2008 Democratic primary debate, candidate Obama was asked, by journalist Charlie Gibson, a question about his proposal to nearly double the capital gains tax (from 15 percent to 28 percent). Said Gibson: “… In each instance when the rate dropped [in the 1990s], revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the [capital gains] tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” Obama replied that he wished to raise the tax “for purposes of fairness.” “We saw an article today,” he explained, “which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year…. [T]hose who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”


Low Ratings for Senator Obama's Tax Policies

  • The National Taxpayers Union—an organization that “seeks to reduce government spending, cut taxes, and protect the rights of taxpayers”—gave then-Senator Obama ratings of zero percent, 16 percent, and “F” in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively.
  • Americans for Tax Reform—which “believes in a system in which taxes are simpler, fairer, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today”—gave Obama a zero percent rating in 2005 and a 15 percent rating in 2006.
  • The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council—which “works to influence legislation and policies that help to create a favorable and productive environment for small businesses and entrepreneurship”—gave Obama a rating of 9 percent in 2005.
  • The National Federation of Independent Business—which seeks “to impact public policy at the state and federal level and be a key business resource for small and independent business in America”—gave Obama a rating of 12 percent in 2005-2006.
  • The Business-Industry Political Action Committee—which “supports pro-business candidates who have demonstrated the skill and leadership necessary to fuel a pro-business Congress”—rated Obama 15 percent in 2005 and 10 percent in 2006.


Ernst & Young Says President Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes Will Greatly Harm Economy

  • In July 2012, Ernst & Young—a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services—examined four sets of Obama tax proposals: (a) the increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%; (b) the reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high earners; (c) the taxation of dividends as ordinary income; and (d) an increase in the Medicare tax for high-income taxpayers (from 2.9% to 3.8%), and the application of a new 3.8% tax on investment income. The Ernst & Young report concluded that “the higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long-run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock, and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.” All told, Ernst & Young estimate that Obama's tax plan will kill 710,000 small business jobs.
  • Most small businesses pay their taxes using individual tax rates; thus, If individual tax rates are raised, small business tax rates are raised as well.


Obama's Plan for a Tax Hike Is Blocked by Senate Democrats

  • In July 2012, Senate Democrats blocked a vote on President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. Senate Republicans had proposed taking two immediate votes—one to extend the Bush-era tax cuts (for all Americans) in their totality, the other to raise taxes as per Obama’s plan. The Democrats, aware that Obama's plan was politically toxic, refused to bring either measure to a vote.


Obama Lies About His Record on Tax Hikes


In a nationally televised February 6, 2011 interview with Bill O'Reilly, Obama stated: “I didn’t raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years.” The following day, Mark Levin of Americans For Tax Reform debunked Obama's “blatantly false” statement, noting that the president had signed into law at least two dozen tax increases. For example:

  • On February 4, 2009—just 16 days into his presidency—Obama signed into law a 156% increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, thereby violating his “firm pledge” that no American making less than $250,000 would see “any form of tax increase.” The median income of smokers is slightly more than $36,000.
  • In March 2010, Obama signed the healthcare reform bill into law, thereby enacting two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violated his “firm pledge” on taxes):

    * Employer Mandate Excise Tax
    * Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
    * Surtax on Investment Income
    * Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
    * Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
    * Medicine Cabinet Tax
    * HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
    * Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”
    * Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
    * "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
    * Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
    * Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
    * Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
    * Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
    * Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
    * Tax on Health Insurers
    * Biofuel “black liquor” tax hike
    * Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”
  • The second part of Obama’s claim—that he had “lowered taxes over the last two years”—rested merely upon some temporary tax relief he had signed into law. The tax cuts he enacted—such as the temporary payroll tax holiday—were mostly short-term and conditional. By contrast, the tax increases Obama had signed into law were mostly permanent. Indeed, he had signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts.


Obamacare: The Biggest Tax Hike in American History

  • On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, particularly its core provision—the so-called “individual mandate” under which most Americans would be required to buy health care insurance with at least the minimum amount of coverage stipulated by the federal government or pay a fine. Although the Obama administration had tried to characterize the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under the separate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Court's opinion rejected that approach and opted to call the fine, imposed on individuals who decide not to buy health insurance despite the mandate, a tax—within the taxing authority of Congress. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
  • Obamacare will force small businesses with more than 50 employees to purchase “qualifying” health insurance. If they fail to do so, they will be required to pay a tax of up to $2,000 per employee.
  • In September 2012, the Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that 6 million people would be subject to the Obamacare “individual mandate” tax, which would cost them approximately $7 billion in taxes per year. According to the Washington Examiner, most of those 6 million are in the middle class (with incomes below “$60,000 for individuals and $123,000 for families of four). In 2008, Obama pledged that “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase—not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
  • The individual mandate is just one of many new taxes imposed by Obamacare. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare as a whole constitutes the largest tax hike in American history—and it affects mostly people in the middle class.


Obamacare's Massive Taxes on the Middle Class

Forbes.com identifies the following 7 taxes that Obamacare will impose on people earning less than $250,000 per year:

  • Individual Mandate Excise Tax: “Starting in 2014, anyone not buying 'qualifying' health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.”
  • Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap: “Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).”
  • Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap: “Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law.”
  • Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle: “Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016.
  • Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty: “Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.”
  • Indoor Tanning Services Tax: “Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax.”
  • Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax: “Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by high-cost health insurance plans (with premiums at or above $10,200 for a single or $27,500 for a family). Insurers or employers who are self-insured will pay the tax, but it is expected to trickle down to mean higher costs for consumers.


Obamacare Will Raise Self-Employment Tax Rate

  • The healthcare reform bill will raise self-employment tax from 2.9% in 2012 to 3.8% in 2013. This increase, coupled with the rise in the top marginal income-tax rates described above, would raise the marginal income-tax rate on small business profits from its current level of approximately 38%, to about 43% in 2013. This would be devastating to small employers, most of whom have thin profit margins. According to Fox News, “A company with $1 million in profits facing a higher tax rate of 5 percentage points will be saddled with another $50,000 in taxes.”


Obamacare Medical Device Tax

  • This 2.3% tax will take effect in 2013 and will affect companies that manufacture devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables. Expected to bring in $20 billion in annual revenues, this tax will be levied on gross sales and thus must be paid even by companies that do not earn a profit in a given fiscal year. The medical-device industry employs 409,000 Americans in 12,000 plants nationwide; many of these incur losses for several years before they are able to turn a profit.


Obamacare Investment Surtax

  • “Also taking effect in 2013,” says a Fox News report, “this tax increase captures those few small business owners not covered by the self-employment tax hike: owners of Subchapter-S corporations and limited partners. These owners are currently exempt from self-employment tax, mostly because they are investors rather than proprietors. But Obamacare sweeps them into the IRS net too, forcing them to pay the 3.8 percentage point tax as an 'investor surtax.' This will make it far more difficult for investors to raise money to start up small firms. An investor is going to need to see even greater small business profit projections to overcome this higher 'hurdle rate' of taxes. Not only does a small business owner have to give his investor a strong return on his investment, he now has to do it with a giant tax mill around his neck.”


Obama Proposes Death Tax Increase

  • As of 2012, the estate tax—or “death tax”—has a top rate of 35% and a “standard deduction” of $5 million ($10 million in the case of a married couple or surviving spouse). President Obama calls for raising the rate to 45%, and reducing the exemption to $3.5 million. A Fox News report explains the implications of this measure: “When a family business owner dies, it’s up to the surviving family members to pay the death tax to the government. Needless to say, many successful, job-creating small businesses simply won’t survive this process. Such families will have little choice but to sell the business (and lay off all the employees) in order to pay the IRS. Or they will have to pay a small fortune to lawyers, accountants, and the life insurance industry to avoid this fate.”


Obama's Massive “Cap & Trade” Tax Hike That Was Averted by Congress

  • In a February 2009 speech to Congress, President Obama called for the implementation of a cap-and-trade environmental/energy plan designed to reduce carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade legislation (known officially as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or the Waxman-Markey bill, in honor of its congressional sponsors) would have established an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions and then permitted companies to buy or sell emission “credits.”
  • Robert Murphy, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, explained the mechanism by which cap-and-trade would impose costs on the American public: “Under a cap-and-trade scheme, the government sets an absolute cap on how much carbon dioxide industries can emit in the United States, and it enforces this cap by selling a limited number of allowances. All of the operations (utilities, factories, etc.) covered by the law must turn in the appropriate number of allowances based on how much carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere each year. The government gets its revenues from auctioning off these allowances to the highest bidder.”
  • The ultimate result of cap-and-trade would be carbon rationing, since there would be a fixed number of carbon allowances available to American businesses as a whole. Such rationing would dramatically raise the operating costs of many businesses, which in turn would pass those costs on to their customers. According to the Heritage Foundation, the average American household would incur additional costs ranging from $1,870 to $6,970 per year. An MIT study placed the figure at $3,100. A March 2009 U.S. Treasury Department document said “a cap and trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.” That is the equivalent of raising personal income taxes by approximately 15%, or $1,761 a year, per household.
  • In 2008, candidate Obama readily acknowledged that cap-and-trade would impose significantly higher energy costs on Americans of all income levels: “[U]nder my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
  • On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives gave President Obama what he wanted, passing a cap-and-trade bill that called for the U.S. to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 83% over the next 41 years. By 2050, the average American would be allowed the same level of emissions as was produced by a citizen in 1867. Environmental groups celebrated, but the bill was extremely unpopular with the American public at large. Therefore, the bill was never passed by the Senate and did not become law, thereby preventing Obama from imposing an enormous tax on the American people.
  • Thus rebuffed by Congress, Obama next sought to impose cap-and-trade by circumventing the legislative process and imposing cap-and-trade through edicts by his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In March 2012, for example, the Obama EPA issued a final rule limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from electric utilities to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced—far below the 1,768 pound-average of existing coal plants. As Bonner Cohen, senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, writes: “The rule requires future plants to use as yet non-existent carbon capture and control technologies to cut their emissions to the new standard. With no technology available to bring down CO2 emissions to the new standard, EPA, in the name of combating climate change, is effectively telling the coal industry, which produces 55 percent of our nation’s electricity, that its days are numbered.”


Obama's Devotion to Failed “Keynesian” Economic Policies

  • President Obama is an adherent of what is known as Keynesian economics, named after the early-to-mid-twentieth century economist John Maynard Keynes. As Forbes magazine contributor Peter Ferrara explains: “The [Keynesian] idea is that the increased government spending and deficits will increase demand in the economy for more production, and that producers will increase supply to meet that demand, hiring more workers and reducing unemployment in the process. Keynesian economics arose in the 1930s in response to the Depression. It never worked then, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression. And it never worked anywhere it’s been tried since then, in the U.S. or abroad. By the 1970s, Keynesian policies had produced double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates, all at the same time, along with four successive worsening recessions from 1969 to 1982. Keynesian monetary policy involves running up the money supply to increase demand, with artificially lowered interest rates promoting more spending. That is where the inflation came from.”
  • Ferrara then explains: “Ronald Reagan explicitly scrapped Keynesian economics for the more modern supply side economics, which holds that economic growth results from incentives meant to boost production. That results from reduced tax rates, which enable producers to keep a higher proportion of what they produce. It results from reduced regulatory costs, which also increases the net reward for increased production. And it results from monetary policies maintaining a strong, stable dollar, without inflation, which assures investors that the value of their investments will not be depreciated by inflation or a falling dollar, or threatened by repeated recessions resulting from policy induced boom/bust cycles, as in the 1970s.... [Under Reagan] inflation was quickly whipped, cut in half by 1982, and in half again by 1983, never to be heard from again until recently. At the same time ... the economy took off on a 25-year economic boom from 1982 to 2007, interrupted by just two, short, shallow recessions, widely recognized in the economic literature, and by the National Bureau of Economic Research, as one long boom. During the first 7 years of that boom alone, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.”
  • Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America during that 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years combined.
  • From 2002-2007, the growth in the U.S. economy was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of China to the American economy.
  • In light of these facts, Ferrara notes that “Obama has turned out to be the most regressive, backward looking President in American history, taking us back to the failed, discredited Keynesianism of the 1930s to 1970s, as if nothing at all interesting happened from 1980 to 2007.... Obama’s first major act in office was to pursue the unreconstructed Keynesianism of the nearly $1 trillion so-called 'stimulus,' which we now know didn’t stimulate anything except government spending, deficits and debt. Obama promised us at the time that if his 'stimulus' bill passed, the unemployment rate would never exceed 8%, and would decline to 5.8% by May of [2012]. But in reality it was 8.2% and rising in May.”
  • Obama articulated his devotion to Keynesian economic policies when he stated, in December 2009, that America must continue to “spend our way out of this recession.”


The Disastrous Auto Industry Bailouts
 

  • During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama has boasted that the automobile industry is “back on its feet” and “repaying its debt, gaining ground.” He contends that if his administration had not infused $80 billion into the financially troubled General Motors and Chrysler, both companies would have gone bankrupt, shut down their factories, sold all their assets, and liquidated. In turn, this would have had enormous consequences for auto parts suppliers and dealerships, which would have been forced to lay off a combined 1 million workers. Vice President Biden has used more colorful language to congratulate himself and the President for their professed successes: “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.”
  • The auto-industry bailouts originated in late 2008, during the waning weeks of George W. Bush's presidency, when then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson took $17 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Fund and lent it to General Motors and Chrysler. Upon taking office, President Obama established an auto task force headed by “car czar” Steve Rattner.
  • Many experts believe that at least GM could have obtained private bankruptcy financing if it had presented a feasible restructuring plan that dealt with the unsustainable costs of its unionized work force ($58 per hour, including benefits).
  • As Reason magazine points out: “Absent the bailout, these companies would have survived, but they would have looked very different. They might have merged into one, pooling resources and slashing excess capacity from the industry. Alternatively, entrepreneurs might have purchased their more viable brands and run them as independent companies, breaking up the industry’s big vertically-integrated players into myriad smaller ones. Either way, the labor and capital squeezed out from the industry would have been more productively deployed elsewhere. History offers examples: A bankruptcy-triggered reorganization of the steel industry three decades ago led to an 18 percent increase in employment in the plastic industry, which replaced steel for some uses.”
  • But instead, the Obama administration used taxpayer dollars to take control of the bankruptcy process, stand bankruptcy law on its head, and protect the labor unions that have long been key Democratic supporters. For example, Chrysler’s secured creditors, who would have had priority in a normal bankruptcy proceeding, received 29 cents on the dollar, vs. Chrysler’s unions which received more than 40 cents on the dollar, even though they were the equivalent of low-priority creditors.
  • Obama favored union workers not only over creditors, but also over non-union employees. For example, all United Auto Workers retirees at Delphi, GM’s Michigan-based auto supplier, received 100% of their pension and retirement benefits. But the 20,000+ non-union employees lost up to 70 % of their pensions, and all of their life and health insurance benefits. Numerous incriminating emails obtained by The Daily Caller proved that Obama's Treasury Department “was the driving force behind terminating the pensions” (as well as healthcare and life insurance benefits) of the non-union workers. Those terminations, said The Daily Caller, “appea[r] to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.” Moreover, the emails contradicted sworn testimony by the White House and Treasury Department, which had consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)—the only government entity with the legal authority to initiate termination of a pension—had “independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan.”
  • In August 2012, President Obama declared: “Now I want to do the same thing [i.e., bailouts] with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” Radio host Mark Levin responded with a withering critique of the bailout that Obama and his administration were touting. Said Levin: “We are still stuck with 500 plus million shares of GM stock. And for us to break even, they have to be sold at $53 per share. They debuted post-bankruptcy at $33 per share. They are now $20 per share. That’s setting us up for another $16 billion in losses just in stock.... Obama allowed GM to illegally carry forth through bankruptcy $45.4 billion in losses, which will cost [us], the taxpayers, $18 billion in lost tax revenue. The $82 billion GM-Chrysler bailout was supposed to ‘create or save’ American jobs. It killed 100,000 jobs right out of the gate with the ideological closings of car dealerships.... [And] what about Obama’s boast today about saving a million jobs?... Before filing bankruptcy in 2009 … GM had 91,000 employees in the United States. Now, you can reach a 400,000 total by assuming that all of GM’s jobs, as well as all the jobs of its part suppliers and car dealers, would have been lost. So how did he save a million jobs? Or as he likes to put it: over a million jobs? Even saving 20% of the 400,000 jobs comes at a very high cost. $780,000 per job—Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.”


Obama Gives an Indication That Taxes Will Ultimately Be Raised on most Americans, Not Just the Wealthy (though the latter will be targeted first)

  • On December 6, 2012, Obama, calling for a tax hike on the top 2% of earners, said: "We’re going to have to strengthen our entitlement programs so that they’re there for future generations. Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice, who are in the best position to do a little bit more to step up."

Obama Calls for Highest Sustained Taxation in U.S. History

On April 21, 2014, CNS News reported:

In the budget proposal he presented to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called for what would be the highest level of sustained taxation ever imposed on the American people, according to the analysis published last week by the Congressional Budget Office.

Under Obama’s proposal, taxes would rise from 17.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2014 to 19.2 percent in 2024. During the ten years from 2015 to 2024, federal taxation would average 18.7 percent [of] GDP.

America has never been subjected to a ten-year stretch of taxation at that level.

In the twelve fiscal years preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1930 through 1941), federal taxation averaged 5.3 percent of GDP.

In the five fiscal years encompassing U.S. involvement in World War II (1942 through 1946), federal taxation averaged 16.1 percent of GDP.

In the fiscal years since World War II (1947 through 2013), federal taxation has averaged 17.1 percent of GDP.

In the period from fiscal 1992 through 2001, federal taxes averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. But in the last four years of that period (1998 through 2001), the federal budget was in balance.

In the twelve fiscal years from 2002 through 2013, federal taxes averaged 16.1 percent of GDP—the same that they averaged during World War II. However, the federal government ran deficits in each of those twelve years.

In all ten years from 2015 through 2024, under Obama's proposal, federal taxes would be higher than 18.3 percent of GDP....

Under Obama’s budget proposal, according to the CBO, the budget will never balance. But over the next ten years, the federal government would add $7.183 trillion to its debt held by the public.

While adding that $7.183 trillion to the debt held by the public, Obama would increase taxes by $1.4 trillion, said the CBO report.


Obama's 442 Proposed Tax Hikes


In April 2014 the Daily Caller reported the following with regard to a study by Americans for Tax Reform:

President Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal includes 93 new tax increases, which brings the total number of tax hikes Obama has proposed in office up to 442.

Obama’s rough budget proposal, titled “Opportunity for All,” proposed 93 new tax hikes, according to an analysis conducted by Americans for Tax Reform. A bill based on Obama’s spending blueprint recently died in the House by a 2-413 vote, while Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which repeals Obamacare and cuts more than $5 trillion in federal spending, passed the Republican-controlled chamber.

Obama’s 93 new tax hikes are actually more modest than the career-high 137 tax increases he originally proposed for fiscal year 2014, but still represent his second-highest number of tax hikes proposed during his years in office. Obama proposed a career-low 47 tax increases for fiscal year 2012 before his re-election campaign.

Americans for Tax Reform noted that its analysis did not include the 20 tax hikes signed into law as part of Obamacare.


OBAMA AND HEALTH CARE
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama's Real Goal Is a Complete Government Takeover of Healthcare

  • Obama is on record as having stated emphatically, in a 2003 speech at an AFL-CIO event: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan”—i.e., a government-run system. But by 2007, with the White House clearly within his reach, Obama began to make allowances for the increasingly evident fact that a single-payer plan was not politically palatable to a large enough number of American voters. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he said in May 2007. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.” He made similar references to a “transition step” and “a transitional system” on other occasions during the campaign. In the summer of 2008, Obama declared that “if I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” but acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, such a result could only come about “over time.” Thus Obamacare—i.e., the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—was deliberately designed to be a stepping stone toward total government control of healthcare.
  • Deomocratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, speaking to a group of supporters in 2009, proudly and emphatically acknowledged that the primary, long-term purpose of Obamacare was to put private insurers out of business: “The goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance industry. And I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option ... I know that many of you here today are single-payer advocates and so am I ... This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I belive we will.”


Making a Fraudulent Case for Healthcare Reform


In July 2009, President Obama and the Democrats began to push aggressively for healthcare reform, seeking to institute a “public option” for a government-run health care plan that would quickly drive all private insurers out of business. As justification for this measure, Obama cited the “crisis” of 46 million Americans allegedly unable to obtain or afford health insurance. But as Sally Pipes explains in her book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, the “46 million” figure cited by Obama was entirely inaccurate:

  • First, about 14 million of those uninsured were low-income Americans who were fully eligible for government-assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP—but who simply had never gotten around to enrolling in those programs. They could visit a doctor, clinic, or hospital anywhere in the country and enroll in the programs, on the spot, and receive treatment. Those 14 million people could not, by any reasonable standard, be considered “uninsured.”
  • Another 10 million of the uninsured were not U.S. citizens; many of them were illegal immigrants.
  • And some 28 million of the 46 million uninsured earned more than $50,000 annually—well above the median income nationally. Many of those 28 million were healthy young adults who were not insured by their employers and who chose not to buy insurance on their own because they preferred to use their money for other things. Indeed, Americans aged 19 to 29 represented one of the largest and fastest-growing segments of the uninsured population.
  • The demographic groups cited in the paragraphs above were not mutually exclusive; there was some overlap. And indeed some people did “fall through the cracks.” These were mostly people who earned less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government assistance. There were approximately 8 million of these chronically uninsured, and they were indeed in need of assistance.


Obama Lies Repeatedly about His Late Mother's Alleged Health-Insurance Problem

  • As Jonathan Toobin reported in Commentary magazine: “During the 2008 campaign and throughout the subsequent debate over his health care legislation, President Obama [repeatedly] used his mother’s experience as a cancer patient fighting to get coverage to pay for treatment for what her insurer said was a pre-existing condition as an emotional argument to sway skeptics. However, a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott has revealed this story appears to be a fabrication.... [In fact, the only] dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy[,] and ... her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument. In response to inquiries, 'a White House spokesman chose not to dispute either Ms. Scott’s account or Mr. Obama’s memory, while arguing that Mr. Obama’s broader point remained salient.' In other words, Obama lied in order to make a political point.”


Obamacare's Real Cost Is Three Times Higher Than the President Promised

  • In 2009, President Obama promised a joint session of Congress that his healthcare reform legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” But in 2012, a Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates) found that total spending under the law would be at least $2.6 trillion over ten years.


Hospitals Barred from Readmitting Patients for 30 Days after Discharge

  • Beginning October 1, 2012, hospitals that re-admit patients within 30 days after they were discharged will be required, under an Obamacare provision designed as a cost-cutting measure, to pay stiff fines. These fines could force hospitals to dramatically cut back programs that help the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill. The Associated Press reports that “about two-thirds of the hospitals serving Medicare patients, or some 2,200 facilities, will be hit with penalties averaging around $125,000 per facility this coming year, according to government estimates.” Moreover, large teaching hospitals that are affiliated with universities could be impacted most severely by this Obamacare provision, because they are often on the proverbial front lines in treating the elderly, the poor, and people with difficult-to-diagnose maladies who require frequent readmission to the hospital for urgent care.


Obamacare's Steep Cuts to Medicare Will Cost the Lives of Senior Citizens

  • According to the Congressional Budget, Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare’s future funding over the next ten years. That will e less money to pay hospitals, doctors, hospice care, dialysis centers and Advantage plans that care for senior citizens.
  • Hospitals will have $247 billion less to dedicate to the care of seniors than if the healthcare law had not been enacted.
  • These cuts will force hospitals to reduce care, thereby lowering survival rates for elderly patients.
  • Obama contends that these Medicare cuts will merely stop the practice of “overpaying” providers. But according to federal data, Medicare already pays hospitals only 91 cents per dollar of care.
  • Richard Foster, chief actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, has warned Congress that ObamaCare’s cuts in hospital payments could cause 15% of hospitals to stop accepting Medicare.
  • Other hospitals will respond to the funding shortfall by reducing nurse care.
  • There is historical evidence that these reductions in care are inevitable. As author Betsy McCaughey points out: “When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, hospitals hit with the largest reductions in Medicare revenue (over $1,000 per patient) trimmed nursing staff to make ends meet. Eventually, patients at these hospitals had a 6 percent to 8 percent worse chance of surviving a heart attack than patients at hospitals hit less hard by theMedicare cuts, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. And even the largest cuts to hospitals in 1997 are small compared with what’s coming under Obamacare.... Elderly patients treated at low-spending hospitals get less care and are at higher risk of dying.... [H]eart-attack patients at low-spending hospitals (bottom quintile) are 19 percent more likely to die than patients of the same age at higher-spending hospitals (top quintile). Similarly, patients with pneumonia, congestive heart failure and stroke had [higher] chances of dying at the low-spending hospitals than patients of the same age and illness at hospitals that spend more per senior.”
  • In addition to the across-the-board cuts in hospital payments, the Obama administration in 2012 began awarding bonuses to hospitals that spent the least amount of money per senior patient.


The “Death Panel”

  • Obamacare calls for the establishment of a Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a panel of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which procedures and medications it will authorize for various patients, based on cost considerations and potential benefits for the patient. Like its equivalent in the British healthcare system, the IPAB will give preference to young people over older people, and to healthy people over those with chronic disease.


The Individual Health Care Mandate

  • Obamacare requires almost all Americans to buy health insurance. Those who fail to comply will have to pay a penalty. For individuals, that penalty (as of 2016) will be $695 or 2.5% of household income up to $2,085, whichever is higher. Obamacare sets aside $10 billion for the IRS to pay at least 16,000 new agents who will enforce compliance.


The Employer Mandate

  • Employers with 50 or more workers must offer their employees federally approved insurance options. Those who fail to comply will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Notably, those fines may prove to be less costly than actually offering health insurance, thus many employers are expected to cancel their existing policies and simply pay the penalties instead. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 14 million workers will be affected by this. Those workers will then turn, largely, to state-based Health Benefits Exchanges.


How the Health Benefits Exchanges Will Work

  • Lower-income individuals (those earning between 133% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level—i.e., $14,403 to $43,320) can qualify for government subsidies to help them purchase insurance through these Exchanges. For a family of four, the corresponding range of subsidy eligibility will be $29,326 to $88,200.


Obamacare Prohibits Insurers from Canceling Policies of Unhealthy People

  • Such cancellations have already been illegal for more than a decade, thus the provision is a meaningless public-relations gimmick.


Obamacare Bans Lifetime, Annual, and Dollar-Amount Caps on Benefits

  • This ban will eliminate the current option that allows people to select a less-expensive plan with a very reasonable $2 million limit on coverage. Everyone will instead be funneled into costlier plans.


No One Can Be Denied Insurance, or Charged Extra Because of Their Health Risks

  • Obamacare requires insurers to approve, at a specified cost, 100% of health insurance applicants, regardless of their health, and regardless of any risky behavior patterns in which they may routinely engage. Within any designated geographic area, for example, a 35-year-old, obese, diabetic alcoholic who shares dirty heroin needles with his friends, cannot be charged any more for insurance than a fit, athletic 35-year-old who lives a clean, substance-free lifestyle.


The Goal Is to Drive Private Insurers out of Business
 

  • The additional burdens that Obamacare places on private insurers, whose profit margins currently stand at a mere 3.4%, are designed to ultimately drive those insurers out of business.


Obamacare Expands Medicaid by 18 Million People

  • Obamacare increases Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, and to childless adults aged 26 and under. This will add some 18 million people to the Medicaid rolls, bringing the total to about 84 million. This expansion of Medicaid will require at least 159 new agencies, boards, and commissions to administer—with the assistance of dozens of already-existing federal bureaus.


Obama Administration Acknowledges that Obamacare Will Raise Health Insurance Premiums

  • In 2009, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare, reviewed a report by the insurance industry contending that health insurance premiums would rise sharply with the passage of the healthcare bill (i.e., the Affordable Care Act). At that time (2009), Gruber argued that the industry report failed to take into account government subsidies that would help moderate-income Americans purchase insurance, or administrative overhead costs which he predicted would “fall enormously” once insurance polices were sold through the anticipated government-regulated marketplaces, or exchanges. “If you literally take the data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) you can see that individuals will be saving money in a nongroup market,” he said.
  • On September 22, 2010, in an informal discussion regarding the healthcare bill, President Obama likewise contended that “as a consequence of the Affordable Care Act, premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise. And that means, by the way, that the deficit is going to be lower than it would be otherwise.”
  • But in late 2011 and early 2012, Jonathan Gruber backtracked on his previous analysis. He now told officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado the price of insurance premiums would “dramatically increase” under the reforms. In backtracking on his original analysis, Gruber noted that “even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’ in that they pay more than before reform.” “After the application of tax subsidies, 59% of the individual market [in Wisconsin] will experience an average premium increase of 31%,” Gruber estimated. Similarly, Gruber estimated that 32% of Minnesotans would face hikes similar to those in Wisconsin.
  • On September 24, 2012, Investor's Business Daily reported the following: “During his first run for president, Barack Obama [repeatedly] made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term. But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey. Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065—24%—from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370. What's more, premiums climbed faster in Obama's four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show.
  • The Investor's Business Daily report added: “And Obamacare will continue to fuel health premium inflation. First, the law piles on new coverage mandates. It requires insurance companies to provide 100% coverage for various types of preventive care, bans lifetime coverage limits, extends parents' coverage to offspring up to 26 years old, and requires plans to meet certain 'medical loss ratios.' Coming up are rules on 'essential standard benefits,' limits on deductibles, bans on annual spending caps, and much more. The experience with state mandates show that they only tend to grow over time, and get more expensive.... Meanwhile, Obamacare's insurance reforms—guaranteed issue and community rating—will likely raise premiums, too. States that have tried these reforms—which forbid insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions or charging the sick more—have seen insurance premiums spiral upward as healthy people leave the market, knowing they are guaranteed coverage when they get sick.”


Early Indicators of Obamacare's Destructive Effects

On October 2, 2012, Forbes magazine reported the following about Obamacare (a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act, or ACA):

  • “A key source of the ACA’s projected savings, the CLASS entitlement designed to provide unlimited, lifetime benefits for long-term care, was quickly abandoned. Recognizing that its premiums, $86 billion by 2021, would finance the rest of Obamacare instead of its own costs, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) called CLASS 'a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of,' and vowed to block its inclusion in the Senate bill. Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster calculated the program needed to enroll more than 230 million—more than the entire nation’s workforce—to be financially feasible. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was forced to admit last October that the plan simply wouldn’t work.”
  • “The ACA’s medical device tax—on revenues, not just profits—is already destroying high-paying jobs for Americans and moving them overseas. Directly accounting for more than 400,000 high-paying U.S. jobs of the sort our young people seek, these companies are already eliminating jobs because of ACA’s onerous taxes. ACA’s new taxes will cost Boston Scientific more than $100 million a year, so they built a $35 million research center in Ireland instead of the U.S. and announced another $150 million site in China. Stryker of Michigan announced job cuts of 1,000 workers last November 'in advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax.' CEO Curt Hartman reiterated this month that the tax will force companies to move their operations overseas, eliminating American jobs. Cook Medical of Indiana scrapped plans to open five new plants in the Midwest, while saying 'in reality, we’re not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place.' CEO Alex Lukianov of San Diego’s NuVasive wrote 'to offset this tax increase, we will be forced to reduce investments in research and development and cut up to 200 planned new jobs next year', and 'as a result of the law, for the first time in our history we are being compelled to consider moving manufacturing, clinical trials and investment in new innovation to more business-friendly countries.' And CEO Mark Waite of Lighthouse Imaging in Maine stated what is obvious to anyone with an understanding of business—'This [tax] will end up making the cost of goods higher, and since most of these medical devices are required, as opposed to being optional, that cost gets passed on to the consumer and the cost of care goes up.'”
  • “The Medical Loss Ratio mandate is already forcing insurers out of the market and reducing insurance choices for Americans. Five insurers, including two of the nation’s largest, already decided to stop selling health insurance in Indiana, mainly because of the ACA edict … Ironically, young adults are also seeing their choices disappear, as colleges are dropping low cost, limited coverage plans altogether or pricing students out of health insurance because of these actuarial requirements and the bureaucrat-defined list of 'essential' benefits dictated by ObamaCare.”
  • “A repeated series of waivers to the ACA were urgently granted by HHS, in order to prevent widespread loss of coverage and substantial premium increases caused by ObamaCare’s own decrees. More than a thousand waivers to unions, states, and corporations that cover about 4 million people were granted to avoid 'significant increases in premiums or significant decreases in access to health care benefits … needed to meet the annual limit requirement,'  wrote John Dicken, Director of Health Care Issues for the GAO in his letter to Congress.”


Obamacare: The Biggest Tax Hike in American History

  • On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, particularly its core provision—the so-called “individual mandate” under which most Americans would be required to buy health care insurance with at least the minimum amount of coverage stipulated by the federal government or pay a fine. Although the Obama administration had tried to characterize the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under the separate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Court's opinion rejected that approach and opted to call the fine, imposed on individuals who decide not to buy health insurance despite the mandate, a tax—within the taxing authority of Congress. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
  • Obamacare will force small businesses with more than 50 employees to buy “qualifying” health insurance. If they fail to do so, they will be required to pay a tax of up to $2,000 per employee.
  • In September 2012, the Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that 6 million people would be subject to the Obamacare “individual mandate” tax, which would cost them approximately $7 billion in taxes per year. According to the Washington Examiner, most of those 6 million are in the middle class (with incomes below “$60,000 for individuals and $123,000 for families of four). In 2008, Obama pledged that “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase—not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
  • The individual mandate is just one of many new taxes imposed by Obamacare. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare as a whole constitutes the largest tax hike in American history—and it affects mostly people in the middle class.


Obamacare's Massive Taxes on the Middle Class

Forbes.com identifies the following 7 taxes that Obamacare will impose on people earning less than $250,000 per year:

  • Individual Mandate Excise Tax: “Starting in 2014, anyone not buying 'qualifying' health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.”
  • Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap: “Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).”
  • Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap: “Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law.”
  • Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle: “Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016.
  • Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty: “Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.”
  • Indoor Tanning Services Tax: “Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax.”
  • Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax: “Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by high-cost health insurance plans (with premiums at or above $10,200 for a single or $27,500 for a family). Insurers or employers who are self-insured will pay the tax, but it is expected to trickle down to mean higher costs for consumers.


Obamacare Will Raise Self-Employment Tax Rate

  • The healthcare reform bill will raise self-employment tax from 2.9% in 2012 to 3.8% in 2013. This increase, coupled with the rise in the top marginal income-tax rates described above, would raise the marginal income-tax rate on small business profits from its current level of approximately 38%, to about 43% in 2013. This would be devastating to small employers, most of whom have thin profit margins. According to Fox News, “A company with $1 million in profits facing a higher tax rate of 5 percentage points will be saddled with another $50,000 in taxes.”


Obamacare Medical Device Tax

  • This 2.3% tax will take effect in 2013 and will affect companies that manufacture devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and operating tables. Expected to bring in $20 billion in annual revenues, this tax will be levied on gross sales and thus must be paid even by companies that do not earn a profit in a given fiscal year. The medical-device industry employs 409,000 Americans in 12,000 plants nationwide; many of these incur losses for several years before they are able to turn a profit.


Obamacare Investment Surtax
 

  • “Also taking effect in 2013,” says a Fox News report, “this tax increase captures those few small business owners not covered by the self-employment tax hike: owners of Subchapter-S corporations and limited partners. These owners are currently exempt from self-employment tax, mostly because they are investors rather than proprietors. But Obamacare sweeps them into the IRS net too, forcing them to pay the 3.8 percentage point tax as an 'investor surtax.' This will make it far more difficult for investors to raise money to start up small firms. An investor is going to need to see even greater small business profit projections to overcome this higher 'hurdle rate' of taxes. Not only does a small business owner have to give his investor a strong return on his investment, he now has to do it with a giant tax mill around his neck.”


The Many Failures of Socialized Medicine Around the World


Socialized healthcare systems around the world are invariably beset by serious problems such as rationing of care and medicines; the unavailability of cutting-edge drugs; long waiting lists; and the existence of a bureaucracy determining who merits treatment and who does not. Below is a brief overview of three socialized healthcare systems in other countries.

The British System

In July 1948, England established a National Health Service (NHS) that extended government-administered health insurance to all legal residents of the country. Within two years, more than half a million Britons were on waiting lists for hospitalization, surgery, and other forms of care, and some 40,000 hospital beds were taken out of service because of a nationwide nurse shortage. By 1960 the country's hospital shortage had become so acute that hospitals routinely denied admission to the elderly and the chronically ill, who, once admitted, would have been difficult to discharge because their condition was so fragile.

  • In British industrial centers, it was not uncommon for individual doctors to be responsible for the care of as many as 4,000 registered patients each. In many cases, these doctors were able to give each patient only three minutes of their time per visit.
  • During the decades since then, the situation has not improved. As of 2008, more than a million Britons in need of medical care were on waiting lists for hospital admission. Another 200,000 were trying to get onto such waiting lists. 
  • According to the BBC, British patients face an average wait time of 8 months for cataract surgery; 11 months for a hip replacement; 12 months for a knee replacement; 5 months for slipped-disc surgery; and 5 months for a hernia repair.
  • In many cases, the condition of patients with diseases that were curable at the time of diagnosis degrades to the point of incurability by the time treatment finally becomes available; other patients become too weak to undergo whatever surgical procedures had originally been recommended for them.
  • Each year the NHS cancels approximately 100,000 scheduled operations.
  • Most British hospitals are, by American standards, of poor quality. Up to 40% of NHS patients are undernourished during their hospital stays.
  • The NHS bases its funding decisions on the recommendations of the quasi-governmental National Institute for Clinical Evaluation and Excellence (NICE), a panel that determines which patients merit preference over others in terms of the treatments for which they are eligible, medications they may be given, and how soon they may have access to a doctor. Because of cost considerations, NICE gives preference to young people over older people, and to healthy people over those with chronic disease or with destructive habits such as smoking or alcoholism. NICE is also explicitly tasked with limiting people’s access to many of the latest and most effective drugs, again basing its decisions on what it considers to be most “cost-effective.”
  • In recent years, many native Britons have traveled to other countries to undergo major operations that doctors in their homeland lacked the time to perform. As of October 2008, more than 70,000 of these so-called “health tourists” had procured treatment in at least four-dozen other nations.


The Canadian System

  • Canada has operated a system of socialized medicine since the early 1970s. During this period, the country has experienced a severe nationwide doctor shortage. For example, more than 1.5 million residents of Ontario (or 12% of that province’s population) cannot find family physicians who have time to accept any new patients. Some provinces actually hold lotteries where a few fortunate winners are granted access to medical care that they otherwise would be unable to obtain.
  • Between 1998 and 2008, approximately 11% of physicians who had been trained in Canadian medical schools relocated to the United States—mainly due to financial considerations. Because doctors’ salaries in Canada are negotiated, set, and paid for by provincial governments and are held down by cost-conscious budget analysts, the average Canadian doctor earns only 42% as much as his or her American counterpart.
  • Of Canada’s approximately 34 million people, at least 800,000 are currently on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary medical treatments. 
  • Between 1997 and 2006, the median wait time between a referral from a primary-care doctor for treatment by a specialist increased from 9 weeks to more than 18 weeks.
  • A study entitled Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, conducted by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, reports that Canadian health care patients must wait, on average, 17.7 weeks for admission to a hospital.
  • In a 1999 address to  to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, described how delays in treatment affected heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Specifically, Davies noted that in a single year, “71 Ontario patients died before [being able to undergo this] surgery, 121 were removed from the [waiting] list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery,” and 44 left the province to have the surgery performed elsewhere—usually in the United States.
  • In a 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs, researcher Robert Blendon and colleagues reported that in Canada, the average wait time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. By contrast, 86% of American hospital administrators reported that the average wait time for such a procedure in the U.S. was less than three weeks.
  • In a July 2004 study, Fraser Institute researchers compared the health care systems of 28 industrialized countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They found that while Canada spent more money on health care than any of the other countries in the sample, it ranked, on average, 24th in terms of such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes. Notably, before the government first took control of Canada's health care system in the early 1970s, the nation ranked second in terms of these same indicators.
  • In August 2006, Canadian doctors elected Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care. He opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for the long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” Day fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”


The Cuban System

  • Leftists revere Communist Cuba for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the government-run, universal health care system that was put in place by Fidel Castro. Many of these admirers—among the more notable of whom is the filmmaker Michael Moore—form their impressions of the Cuban health care system from its tourist hospitals, which are, by any standards, clean, well staffed, and of excellent quality. Indeed Cuba, in an effort to attract wealthy foreign tourists who might be willing to spend their money on health care services, has pioneered the practice of so-called “health tourism” through agencies such as Servimed, which markets Cuban medical services abroad.
  • But hospitals for ordinary Cubans possess a dearth of even the most basic medicines and medical equipment. They have virtually no access to antibiotics, insulin, heart drugs, sphygmomanometers to measure blood pressure, sterile gloves, clean water, syringes, soap, or disinfectants.
  • Cuban hospitals typically feature unsanitary conditions. Hospital gowns, linens, and towels must be provided and cleaned by the patients' families. Poor sanitation is extended to the medical instruments handled by doctors and nurses; often these items are not properly sterilized and they remain soiled with traces of tissue and blood after their use. Syringes are frequently used to inject multiple patients without any sterilization, and “disposable” gloves are likewise used and reused. Consequently, infectious diseases are commonplace in the Cuban hospital population.
  • Cuba's health care system is a disaster not only for patients but also for physicians. Because of the meager salaries paid to Cuban doctors—on the average 400 pesos per month (equivalent to $20 U.S.)—many have quit the profession to seek jobs in the only industry that offers them any degree of economic opportunity: the Cuban tourism industry. Former doctors in Cuba can commonly be found driving dilapidated taxis, acting as tour guides, or even working in family inns as waiters or cooks. Those who choose to remain in the medical profession work long hours in dismal conditions.
  • It is noteworthy that in the pre-Castro years of the 1950s, the Cuban population as a whole had access to good medical care through association clinics which predated the American concept of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) by decades, as well as through private clinics. At that time, the Cuban medical system ranked among the best in the world; its ratio of one physician per 960 patients was rated 10th by the World Health Organization. In addition, Cuba had Latin America's lowest infant-mortality rate, comparable to Canada's and better than those of France, Japan, and Italy.


OBAMA AND ENERGY / ENVIRONMENT
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama's “Global Warming” Alarmism

  • Barack Obama is unambiguous in maintaining that human industrial activity causes global warming. As his 2008 presidential campaign declared: “Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. Glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; oceans are becoming more acidic, threatening marine life; people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct. Scientists predict that absent major emission reductions, climate change will worsen famine and drought in some of the poorest places in the world and wreak havoc across the globe. In the U.S., sea-level rise threatens to cause massive economic and ecological damage to our populated coastal areas.”


The Truth about Global Warming

  • The geophysicist Fred Singer points out that: “The Earth's climate has never been steady; it has either warmed or cooled—without any human intervention—since the dawn of time. The measured variations have often been larger and more rapid than those currently predicted by climate models for the year 2100. In the last 3,000 years, temperatures in the North Atlantic have changed by as much as 3°C within a few decades.... None of the climate models incorporate the effects of a variable sun. It has always been assumed that solar variability is simply too small, but this view is now changing. Evidence shows that solar winds and sunspots can affect the earth's ozone layer and influence atmospheric circulation or cloudiness—which in turn can cause significant climate changes.... As for the association of climate change with atmospheric greenhouse gases, on the time-scale of hundreds of millions of years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has sharply declined; its concentration was as much as 20 times the present value at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, 600 million years ago. Moreover, glaciations have occurred throughout geologic time even when CO2 concentrations were high.”
  • As of mid-2008, no fewer than 31,000 U.S. scientists had signed a petition rejecting the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases was damaging Earth's climate.
  • In late November 2009, the so-called “Climategate” scandal cast grave doubt on the intellectual integrity of those leading the effort to spread fear about the alleged dangers of global warming. At the heart of the controversy was the discovery that a number of leading American and British climatologists who held that mankind's industrial activity was causing a dangerous warming trend in the earth's atmosphere, had intentionally manipulated the evidence in order to provide “proof” that their warnings were justified. The scientists' deceptions were found out when hundreds of their private email messages and documents were obtained and publicized by computer hackers.
  • In October 2012, it was reported that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there had been no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. A the Daily Mail explained: “This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”


Obama Opposes Oil Drilling in Alaska's ANWR Region

As a U.S. Senator, Obama voted against permitting the United States to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a 19.6-million-acre area situated in the top northeast corner of Alaska, just north of the Arctic Circle and about 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. He continues to oppose drilling in ANWR, asserting that such a measure would despoil a pristine natural wonderland.


The Truth About ANWR

  • The portion of ANWR where drilling would occur consists of just 2,000 acres, or one-one hundredth of 1% of ANWR's total expanse. Moreover, it is a barren, frozen wasteland for much of the year. During its eight-month winter, temperatures drop as low as 70 degrees below zero. The region is shrouded in near-total darkness for five months, and for 56 days there is no sunlight at all. No trees live in this inhospitable region, and wildlife is present for only about six weeks each year.
  • Opponents of drilling warn that local caribou populations would suffer mass death as a result of any industrial intrusion by man. The same was said in the 1970s by opponents of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAP), which became operative in 1977 and now transports heated oil south from Prudhoe Bay (located about 100 miles west of Area 1002). TAP is the most environmentally responsible oil field in the world. After TAP's inception, the caribou population in its vicinity increased from about 3,000 in the 1970s to more than 32,000 in 2009; animals have actively sought out, and thrived in, the heat radiating from the oil pipes. Not a single wildlife species has decreased in population at Prudhoe Bay since TAP became part of the landscape.


Just Make Sure “Your Tires Are Properly Inflated”

  • At a July 30, 2008 campaign stop in Missouri, Obama said: “There are things that you can do individually ... to save energy; making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off [from] drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”


Obama and the Demise of the Coal Industry

  • In January 2008 Obama said the following about the future of the coal industry, which currently accounts for half of all the electricity produced in America: “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Added Obama: “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
  • In late March 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. No coal-fired power plant would be able to meet the emission limit (1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of power produced), but natural gas-fired power plants could. If passed, this rule would ensure that no new, modern coal-fired power plants would be built in the United States.


Obama's Energy Secretary Reiterates His Support for High Gas Prices

  • In 2008, Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, advocated steep rises in gasoline prices as a means of coaxing Americans into being more fuel-efficient and purchasing green energy cars: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” (i.e., approximately $10 per gallon). In March 2011, Chu reiterated his support for high gasoline prices: “What I’m doing since I became secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices. We have been very focused in the Department of Energy on that. And, in fact, the entire administration has been very focused on that.”


Cap-and-Trade: An Energy Tax on
Everyone

  • In a February 2009 speech to Congress, President Obama called for the implementation of a cap-and-trade environmental plan designed to reduce carbon emissions. The cap-and-trade legislation (known officially as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or the Waxman-Markey bill, in honor of its congressional sponsors) would have established an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions and then permitted companies to buy or sell emission “credits.”
  • Robert Murphy, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, explained the mechanism by which cap-and-trade would impose costs on the American public: “Under a cap-and-trade scheme, the government sets an absolute cap on how much carbon dioxide industries can emit in the United States, and it enforces this cap by selling a limited number of allowances. All of the operations (utilities, factories, etc.) covered by the law must turn in the appropriate number of allowances based on how much carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere each year. The government gets its revenues from auctioning off these allowances to the highest bidder.”
  • The ultimate result of cap-and-trade would be carbon rationing, since there would be a fixed number of carbon allowances available to American businesses as a whole. Such rationing would raise the operating costs of many businesses, which in turn would pass those costs on to their customers. According to the Heritage Foundation, the average American household would incur additional costs ranging from $1,870 to $6,970 per year. An MIT study placed the figure at $3,100. A March 2009 U.S. Treasury Department document said “a cap and trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.” That is the equivalent of raising personal income taxes by approximately 15%, or $1,761 a year, per household.
  • In 2008, candidate Obama readily acknowledged that cap-and-trade would impose significantly higher energy costs on Americans of all income levels: “[U]nder my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
  • Because cap-and-trade proposals became extremely unpopular with the American public in 2009, the legislation was never passed by the Senate and thus did not become law, thereby preventing Obama from imposing an enormous tax on the American people.
  • Thus rebuffed by Congress, Obama next sought to impose cap-and-trade by circumventing the legislative process and imposing cap-and-trade through edicts by his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As the Washington Post reported in August 2011: “Over the next 18 months, the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a flurry of new rules to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated.... Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules 'EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.' The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs.”
  • Heritage Foundation report states that cap-and-trade, if pursued unilaterally by the United States, “would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.” In other words, the bill would extract trillions of dollars out of the U.S. economy in exchange for a benefit so small as to be—even in a best-case scenario—wholly imperceptible. Said the same report: “A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.” The issue of multilateralism was moot, however. China and India hadve long maintained that they have no intention of abiding by the regulations of any cap-and-trade schemes.


Obama's O
pposition to U.S. Oil Drilling

  • On March 31, 2010, President Obama announced that he would open the door to oil drilling off Virginia's coast, in other parts of the mid- and south Atlantic, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in waters off Alaska. At the same time, he declared off-limits the waters off the West Coast and in Alaska's Bristol Bay, canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and called for more study before allowing new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Steve Everly of American Solutions.com put Obama's announcement in context: “The plan is defined more by what it restricts than what it opens up.... No drilling in the Pacific Ocean. No drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean. No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico. No drilling in much of Alaska.... When Congress voted in 2008 not to extend the ban on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS], they did not choose to keep a ban on Pacific waters, nor did they intend for a de facto ban to remain in effect in the OCS for at least another four years. What Congress did through legislative action, acting in accordance with the public will, the President has undone with the stroke of a pen.”
  • On April 20, 2010, the disastrous BP/Deepwater Horizon oil leak began to spew thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis. In a report which he issued on May 27, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recommended a six-month moratorium on all deepwater drilling—notwithstanding the fact that five out of seven consulting engineers stated that such drilling had a strong safety record, and that targeted inspections would be more sensible than a blanket moratorium.
  • In June 2010, federal judge Martin Feldman of Louisiana ordered Salazar and the Obama administration to to lift their “arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, unlawful” ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf. The following month, when a U.S. Court of Appeals denied the administration's bid to put a hold on Feldman's order, the Interior Secretary promptly concocted a second, “revised” moratorium to replace the one Feldman had nullified. Though Salazar officially “lifted” this second ban three months thereafter, he would issue no additional permits that year. Rather, in 2010 he actually rescinded 77 oil-lease contracts that had previously been granted—after seven full years of rigorous study and debate—during the final days of the Bush administration. Federal courts repeatedly scolded Salazar and the Obama administration for their “determined disregard” of judicial orders and their “increasingly inexcusable” action on stalled deepwater drilling projects, to no effect.
  • In February 2011, Judge Feldman—complaining that the Obama administration’s “time delays at issue here are unreasonable”—ordered Salazar and the President to decide within a month whether they would grant a set of five permits for deepwater drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Salazar chose not to comply for several weeks, and instead issued yet another request to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of Feldman's order. Finally, in March 2011 Salazar gave the Shell Offshore Company permission to apply for drilling permits for three new exploratory wells off the Louisiana coast.


Obama Funds Brazilian Oil-Drilling Venture

  • In late August 2009, President Obama agreed to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s quasi-public national oil company, Petrobras, to fund its exploration and drilling of 270 sites in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the richest oil fields in the world (where environmentalist objections had historically thwarted any drilling proposals by U.S. companies). Petrobras is headed by José Sergio Gabrielli, a socialist member of Brazil’s leftist Workers’ Party. Brazil’s socialist government holds 40% of Petrobras’ shares of stock. The government of China also owns a significant stake in Petrobras.
  • Brazil was not the only country preparing to drill for oil in the Gulf region. China, India, Norway, Spain, and Russia, to name a few, had also signed agreements with countries bordering the Gulf, such as Cuba and the Bahamas, authorizing them to initiate exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico.


Obama's False Claims about U.S. Oil and Gas Production under His Watch

  • During his January 24, 2012 State of the Union Speech, President Obama took credit for the highest levels of natural gas production in more than 30 years and the highest levels of oil production in eight years. But these increases had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's policies. A non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released in March 2012 revealed that fully 96 percent of the increase in oil production had occurred on private land, not on land owned or controlled by the federal government.
  • According to a January 2012 Heritage Foundation report, oil and natural gas production on federal lands was down by more than 40% compared to a decade earlier. Under the Obama administration, fewer onshore leases were issued in 2010 than in any year since 1984.


Obama's Ass
ault on the Oil and Gas Industries

  • Obama seeks to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the same tax treatment is extended to producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other manufactured goods; in fact, oil companies receive less of a tax break (6%) than those manufacturers (9%). In short, Obama's condemnation of oil company profits is nothing more than populist rhetoric.
  • The Heritage Foundation adds: “When President Obama lashes out at 'Big Oil,' guess who’s going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers.... Second, when the president talks about 'Big Oil,' keep in mind who 'Big Oil' is—it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent—comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there’s a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there’s a good chance that you suffer, too.”


Obama Limits Oil Shale Exploration

  • On November 9, 2012 -- three days after Obama's reelection as president -- the administration's Interior Department announced its plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated (by the Bush administration) for oil shale development. Interior’s Bureau of Land Management cited environmental concerns for the proposed changes. For example, it excised lands with “wilderness characteristics” and areas that infringed on sage grouse habitats. The plan left 677,000 acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming open for oil shale exploration, and called for another 130,000 acres in Utah to be set aside for tar sands production.


The “Green Energy” Disaster: Solyndra, etc.

  • Between 2009 and 2012, Obama pumped $90 billion of taxpayer money into green energy initiatives, most of which failed because they could not compete in the energy marketplace. This included, most famously, $535 million that was fast-tracked to the solar panel company Solyndra. A major Solyndra investor, billionaire George Kaiser, was a big Obama donor and one of the president's campaign fundraising “bundlers.”
  • It was obvious, from the outset, that Solyndra was a risky investment. As early as 2008, Fitch Ratings assigned the company a mediocre B+ credit rating, and Dun & Bradstreet assessed its credit as “fair.” In March 2010, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers observed that Solyndra “has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders’ deficit that, among other factors, raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” Yet two months later, Obama told an audience of Solyndra employees that “the future is here.” A month after that, Solyndra withdrew a scheduled Initial Public Offering, despite being informed by auditors that the company would not survive even a year if it failed to raise the $300 million it was seeking.
  • In late October 2010, Solyndra was ready to announce that it would have to lay off many of ts workers. But the Obama administration pushed the company “very hard” to delay that announcement until November 3—the day after the midterm elections where Democrats were in danger of losing control of the House of Representatives. Solyndra complied, and waited until November 3 to make its announcement.
  • In July 2011, Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison went to Washington, DC to tell lawmakers that his company was in a “strong financial position.” Two weeks later, the company closed its doors, laid off 1,100 workers and filed for bankruptcy.


Other Federally Funded “Green Energy” Debacles

  • Amonix Solar: In July 2012, this Las Vegas-based manufacturing plant—subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants awarded by the Obama administration—permanently shuttered its operations a year after it had opened.
  • Solar Trust of America: This company filed for bankruptcy on April 3, 2012.
  • Bright Source: Though this solar-power company has already lost billions of dollars, the Obama administration continues to pump money into it.
  • LSP Energy: This electricity producer filed for bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in February 2012.
  • Energy Conversion Devices: This renewable-energy company and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy on February 14, 2012.
  • Abound Solar: Soon after receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration, this solar-panel company announced in June 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. A major investor in Abound Solar was Bohemian Companies, whose founder, Democratic mega-donor Pat Stryker, had not only donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, but had also contributed $50,000 for Obama’s 2008 inauguration and bundled another 87,000 for that event.
  • SunPower: This company stopped producing solar cells in 2011, when it was near bankruptcy.
  • Beacon Power: This energy company filed for bankruptcy protection in October 2011, just a year after Obama had approved a $43 million government loan guarantee.
  • Ecotality: This San Francisco-based green-technology company received approximately $115 million in loan guarantees from President Obama, though it has never turned a profit and sits on the precipice of bankruptcy.
  • A123 Systems: This lithium battery manufacturer, backed by $249 million in subsidies from the Obama administration, filed for bankruptcy on October 16, 2012.
  • UniSolar: This company filed for bankruptcy on June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of employees. Obama then awarded it additional money, but it continues to operate at a huge loss.
  • Azure Dynamics: After the Obama administration gave this electric- and hybrid-vehicle company millions of dollars in “stimulus” funds as well as tax abatements and tax credits, this company filed for bankruptcy in June 2012.
  • Evergreen Solar: After receiving $527 million in taxpayer funds from the Obama administration, this company laid off some 1,800 workers in early 2011. Later that year, it filed for bankruptcy.
  • Ener1: This electric-car battery manufacturer received a $118 million grant from Obama's Energy Department, then defaulted on debt and filed for bankruptcy protection in January 2012.


Commitment to the Fight Against “Global Warming

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, the newly re-elected Obama emphasized his commitment to pursuing “green energy” as a means of addressing the threat of global warming: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.”


OBAMA AND HOMELAND SECURITY / WAR ON TERROR
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Condemned Warrantless Wiretaps of Terror Suspects

  • Denouncing the Bush administration's warrantless wiretaps of terror suspects, candidate Obama said in 2007: “This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.”


Obama Accused the Bush Administration of Trampling on the Constitution

  • “I taught constitutional law for ten years at the University of Chicago,” said candidate Obama in 2008. “... Your next president will actually believe in the Constitution, which you can’t say about your current president.”


Senator Obama Denounced the Troop Surge That Ultimately Turned the Tide of the Iraq War

  • In January 2007—three weeks after President Bush announced that he would deploy an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq in a “surge” strategy designed to crush the enemy with overwhelming force—then-Senator Obama derided the surge in unequivocal terms. “I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground,” he said prior to its implementation. Soon after the surge had been initiated, Obama declared prematurely: “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”
  • The surge proved to be a spectacular success and enabled the U.S. to win the war in Iraq.


New Limits on Interrogating Terrorists

  • Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order requiring all U.S. agents who interrogate high-value detainees to abide by the guidelines set forth in the Army Field Manual (AMF), whose limits on interrogation practices are much stricter than those traditionally followed by the CIA. For example, the AMF prohibits interrogators from subjecting detainees to “excessive noise,” “excessive dampness,” or “excessive or inadequate heat, light or ventilation”; it bans any sleep deprivation that does not permit a detainee at least four hours of sleep per night; it states that “all prisoners and detainees, regardless of status, will be treated humanely”; and it forbids interrogators from taunting detainees by such means as mocking those passages of the Koran that serve as the basis for the jihadists’ fanatical beliefs.


“Man-Caused Disasters,” Not “Terrorism”

  • In March 2009, Obama's Department of Homeland Security broke with its traditional practice of warning the American public about potential “terrorist” threats, and instead began referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”


Miranda Warnings for Suspected Terrorists

  • In June 2009 the Obama Justice Department, demonstrating its preference to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement issue rather than as a military matter, ordered the FBI to give Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured at war in Afghanistan.


Obama Releases 12 Prisoners from Guantanamo

  • In December 2009, President Obama released twelve more jihadists from the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba: four Afghanis, two Somalis, and six Yemenis. One of the ex-prisoners, a Somali named Mohamed Saleban Bare, had ties to Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya, a Somali Islamist movement that produced many leaders of the al Qaeda-linked Shebab terror group.


Obama's Reluctance to Use the Word “Terrorist”

  • On Christmas Day of 2009, a Nigerian al Qaeda operative boarded a Northwest Airlines flight (from Amsterdam to Detroit) and attempted, without success, to blow up the plane in midair with a chemical bomb. In public remarks soon after the incident, President Obama referred to the man as an “isolated extremist” rather than as a terrorist or a jihadist. In subsequent days the administration announced that it would offer the perpetrator a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knew about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; if such an arrangement could not be worked out, the government planned to try him in federal civilian court.


Obama Condemns Waterboarding

  • On the matter of using enhanced interrogation techniques (such as waterboarding) on high-level terrorist suspects, in 2008 candidate Obama emphatically pledged to end that practice, which he viewed as “torture.”


Betraying CIA Personnel, Ob
ama Releases Highly Classified “Torture” Memos

  • In April 2009, against the protestations of former CIA director Michael Hayden, President Obama released a number of legal memos detailing the types of enhanced-interrogation techniques that U.S. authorities had used on suspected terrorists in the past. According to the declassified memos, waterboarding had been used on both Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (mastermind of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa and the 9/11 attacks) and Abu Zubaydah (al Qaeda’s operational planner).
  • In an interview, Hayden said that anyone who objected to the CIA’s use of such methods was avoiding a very “inconvenient truth”: “[T]he use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer.... [O]ne detainee led to another, led to another, with the use of these techniques.... At the tactical level, what we have [now] described [with the release of the memos] for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al-Qaeda terrorist. That’s very valuable information.”
  • President Obama later stated that while the “enhanced interrogation” techniques had indeed produced valuable intelligence, the same information could have been obtained in other ways—though he did not specify how.


Obama Threatens to Prosecu
te Bush Administration Officials and CIA Interrogators Who Condoned and Practiced Waterboarding

  • On April 21, 2009, the Obama administration announced that it would entertain the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials who had crafted legal opinions that led to the use of methods (such as waterboarding) that Obama considered to be torture.
  • In late August 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would soon launch a criminal probe of former CIA interrogators who, during the Bush administration, may have used techniques such as waterboarding, which Obama had recently banned. Former Vice President Dick Cheney reacted to Holder’s announcement as follows: “It’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say…. It’s a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community.”
  • On September 18, 2009, seven former CIA chiefs—John Deutch, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, James R. Schlesinger, George Tenet, William Webster and R. James Woolsey—sent a letter to President Obama urging him to call off the investigation of the agency's interrogation methods, on grounds that it would weaken the government's intelligence-gathering abilities and deter other nations from working with the United States. Said the letter: “Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. But, the administration must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help al Qaeda elude U.S. intelligence and plan future operations…. Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as Sept. 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions.”
  • Obama responded by saying that he had no intention of calling off the investigation.


Trying Terrorists in Civilian Court Rather Than in Military Tribunals

  • In November 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, formally authorizing the adjudication of war crimes and terrorism cases in military courts. According to the Defense Department, military tribunals, where military officers serve as the judges and jurors, are designed to deal with offenses committed in the context of warfare. The issue of whether it is appropriate to try someone accused of the aforementioned transgressions in a military court depends upon how one answers a single overriding question: Is terrorism a matter of war, or is it a legal issue where redress should be pursued via the criminal-justice system—like robbery, vandalism, or murder?
  • In Obama’s view, the creation of military commissions to try terror suspects captured in the War on Terror was, from its inception, “a bad idea.” From the beginning of his presidency, he articulated his belief that civilian courts were the proper venue in which terrorism cases should be tried.
  • Obama and his fellow critics of military commissions accuse the latter of trampling on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who, the critics contend, should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where they would enjoy the enhanced rights and protections that such courts afford to all defendants (particularly with regard to the admissibility of secret evidence).
  • Immediately following his inauguration, Obama's first act as U.S. President was to order the suspension of all military tribunals that had been established to adjudicate the cases of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which continued to house more than 200 al Qaeda and Taliban combatants captured by the American military during its post-9/11 wars in the Mideast.
  • In November 2009, the Obama administration announced that it planned to try five Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy in a civilian court.
  • In November 2010, al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani—responsible for the deaths of 224 people in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania—became the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court and was acquitted on all but one of the charges against him.


Avoiding Political Suicide, Obama
Announces That 9/11 Conspirators Will Be Tried in Military Tribunal Rather Than Civilian Court

  • On April 4, 2011, the Obama administration announced that, in a reversal of its November 2009 decision, it would now proceed to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (and four co-conspirators) in a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay. This move was made because the policy of civilian trials for terrorists was proving to be immensely unpopular with the American public. As former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy observed: “[Obama's] reversal comes not because the administration wanted to abandon the push for a civilian trial. It comes because the president ... is seeking reelection. Trying to force a civilian trial of the 9/11 attacks would doom that effort.... [I]t was the president who, as a candidate, campaigned on returning the country to the pre-9/11 counterterrorism model that regarded al-Qaeda’s onslaught as a mere law enforcement problem. That policy was a debacle.... Never in the history of the United States have our wartime enemies been invited into our civilian courts, clothed in the majesty of our Constitution, enabled by our due process rules to comb through our intelligence files, and given a platform to put our government, our troops, and our society on trial.”


Obama Says He Would Have Tried Bin Laden in Civilian Court if Captured Alive

  • On October 3, 2012, The Hill reported that according to President Obama, if Osama bin Laden had been captured alive rather than killed in May 2011, he would have been sent to a civilian U.S. court for a criminal trial. Obama was quoted as having said: “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III…. I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”


Mastermind of the USS Cole Bombing Is Released

  • In early February 2009, President Obama announced that all charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (which killed 17 American servicemen), would be dropped. Nashiri, who had issued confessions under the duress of such procedures as waterboarding and mock executions, was slated to be tried by a military commission, where evidence obtained by means of those measures would have been admissible. But because Obama had now outlawed military commissions, that evidence would no longer be admissible. Thus the defendant was released.


Obama Has Continued Bush-Era Anti-Terrorism Policies That He Condemned As a Senator

  • Contrary to campaign pledges he made in 2008, President Obama has continued a number of Bush-era policies, such as detaining suspected terrorists without trial; keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open (on this issue Congress gave him virtually no choice); calling for limits on habeas corpus in countries like Afghanistan; using robotic killer drones in nations with which America is not at war (e.g., Pakistan); emphasizing surveillance and secrecy in tracking down terrorists; and, as discussed above, trying terrorists in military tribunals rather than civilian courts.


KILLING OSAMA BIN LADEN
(Return to Table of Contents)

Osama bin Laden Is Killed by U.S. Navy SEALs

  • On May 2, 2011, forty U.S. Navy SEALS raided a Pakistani compound where Osama bin Laden was believed to be residing. They found there terrorist leader therein and gunned him down.


Obama Was a Longtime Critic of the Very Tactics that Allowed the U.S. to Find Bin Laden

  • A key development in the search for the elusive bin Laden had occurred in 2007, when two Guantanamo Bay detainees—Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi—were shipped to “extraordinary rendition” sites in Eastern Europe where they were waterboarded. As a direct result of the waterboarding, these men provided U.S. officials with the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden's most trusted personal couriers. The informants indicated that the courier in question might be living with, and protecting, the al Qaeda leader. Proceeding from that tip, U.S. intelligence officials painstakingly set out to locate the courier. In August 2010 they finally succeeded in tracing him to a house in a suburb about 35 miles north of Islamabad, Pakistan. Further surveillance suggested, though never conclusively proved, that bin Laden himself was also living there. His presence was ultimately confirmed on the night of his death.
  • It is highly significant that Obama had long been an outspoken critic of both the Guantanamo Bay detention center and enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. Indeed, the administration had seriously entertained the idea of prosecuting Bush-era officials who had crafted legal opinions that authorized waterboarding.


Obama Called off Three Previously Planned Missions to Kill Bin Laden

  • Obama's supporters praised him for authorizing the Navy SEAL mission that resulted in bin Laden's death. Some critics, meanwhile, pointed out that it would be inconceivable for any president to have done otherwise. Then, author Richard Miniter, in his 2012 book Leading from Behind, reported that according to a Joint Special Operations Command source, Obama, at the urging of advisor Valerie Jarrett, had actually canceled the operation to kill bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 mission.


Obama Says He Would Have Tried Bin Laden in Civilian Court if Captured Alive

  • On October 3, 2012, The Hill reported that according to Obama, bin Laden, had he been captured alive, would have been sent to a civilian U.S. court for a criminal trial. Obama was quoted as having said: “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III…. I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”

Obama Allegedly Played Cards During Bin Laden Raid

  • Reggie Love, who in 2011 served as President Obama's special assistant and personal aide -- commonly referred to as the "body man" entrusted with taking care of the president's most immediate needs -- later stated publicly that he and Obama had played cards during the bin Laden raid. Said Love: “Most people were like down in the Situation Room and [President Obama] was like, ‘I’m not going to be down there, I can’t watch this entire thing,’ We must have played 15 games of spades."


OBAMA AND THE MILITARY
(Return to Table of Contents)

Prepared to Cut or Abandon Missile Defense Funding

  • Obama has consistently opposed America's active pursuit of a missile defense system. In a February 2008 campaign ad, he stated: “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space.”
  • In June 2009, President Obama submitted to Congress a defense budget for fiscal year 2010 that called for cutting $1.4 billion from the Missile Defense Agency.
  • On September 17, 2009—the 70th anniversary of the day the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939—the Obama administration, bowing to intense pressure from Russia, abandoned proposals (forged during the Bush administration) to set up a missile defense shield in Europe. CNS News reported: “The move will resonate in Poland and the Czech Republic, where governments weathered domestic unease and Russian fury by signing agreements with the Bush administration in 2008 to host elements of the system.... The ballistic missile defense (BMD) umbrella was aimed at protecting the U.S. and its allies against potential aggression from Iran ... But the Kremlin characterized the BMD plan as a threat to Russian security and threatened retaliatory steps.”
  • Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardner called the move “an appalling surrender to Russian demands, and the shameful appeasement of an increasingly aggressive regime that is openly flexing its muscle in an effort to intimidate ex-members of the Warsaw Pact.”
  • Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president, said: “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe. The way we are being approached needs to change.”
  • Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose government signed treaties with the Bush administration to build the system, said: “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”
  • According to political analyst and retired military officer Ralph Peters, “Obama got nothing in return. No Russian commitments on Iran's nuclear program. No sovereignty guarantees for Georgia. No restrictions on arms sales to Venezuela.”


Obama Privately Tells Russian President: “After My Election I Have More Flexibility”

  • On March 26, 2012, President Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that if his successor, Vladimir Putin, would hive him “space,” he (Obama) would have more flexibility to strike a missile-defense bargain “after my election.” The remarkably revealing exchange went as follows:

    Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.

    Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

    Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

    Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.


Obama Calls for Cuts in Military Generally, and in Nuclear Arsenal Particularly

  • Said candidate Obama in 2008: “I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.... I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material….”
  • From the earliest days of his presidency, Obama signaled his intent to slow defense spending (particularly in terms of modernizing and upgrading existing weapons systems); to cut funding for ballistic missile-defense systems; and to adopt a new arms-control deal with the Kremlin that would drastically reduce the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia alike (as a steppingstone toward Obama’s stated goal of a global ban on all such instruments of war).
  • In his June 2009 defense budget for fiscal year 2010, Obama proposed limiting the number of F-22 Fighter Jets to 186, well below the 243 that Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz had recently recommended as a bare-bones minimum. He also advocated canceling the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, despite the fact that it was the only program through which the Army could replace most of its tracked vehicles—many of which dated back to the 1970s.
  • In Obama’s 2010 budget overall, fully 82% of all discretionary program terminations targeted military programs, and 55% of all budget cuts were for military-related items.


Nuclear Arms Reduction Deal with Russia

  • On April 8, 2010 in Prague, President Obama signed the New START bilateral arms control agreement with Russia, limiting each country's long-range nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,500. (America's existing nuclear weapons arsenal at that time was 5,113.) Constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafley explored the details of this deal and its implications: “It reads like it was written by the Russians and has nothing good in it for the United States.... The treaty allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, whereas the United States is locked into reducing its current number. That means Russia will have new and tested weapons, but the U.S. will be stuck with its current, out-of-date, untested warheads.... The fantasy that our abandonment of nuclear weapons will inspire other nations to follow our example is so foolish that it can only be described as nuts.... The treaty does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, leaving Russia with a 10-to-one numeric superiority, which Russia has threatened to use in regional conflicts. We could build more tactical missiles, but there is no chance Obama will do that. New START gives up the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production that were requirements of previous treaties.”
  • Added Schlafley: “Obama has made it clear that his eagerness for a nuclear-zero world also means a world without any defense against nuclear weapons. He has cut spending for missile defenses and killed or mothballed the few innovative programs we have to knock down incoming rockets in their boost phase. Ever since President Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, the Kremlin has tried to ban all U.S. missile defenses. The Kremlin brags that it achieved this goal in New START. This treaty gives Russia a veto over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles.... Russia explained that ... it will stick with New START 'only if the (U.S.) refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.'”
  • Under the treaty, both the U.S. and Russia agreed to limits in numbers of warheads, but only America promised to freeze its technology.
  • After having signed the New START nuclear treaty with Russia, a pact that committed the United States to reducing its arsenal of deployed strategic long-range nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018, President Obama further considered reducing that figure (for America only) to as few as 300. Indeed, in February 2012 the White House directed the Defense Department to examine three levels of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: 1,000 to 1,100 warheads; 700 to 800 warheads; and 300 to 400 warheads (a level not seen since 1950). Many American military officials contend that the 1,550 level mandated by New START is the lowest level that can be used to maintain deterrence of a nuclear attack.
  • America’s nuclear delivery platforms are already among the oldest in the world. For example, the average age of U.S. nuclear delivery platforms is 50 years for the B-52H bomber; 41 years for the Minuteman III; 28 years for the Ohio-class submarine; 21 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM; and 14 years for the B-2 bomber.
  • In February 2012, President Obama proposed $487 billion in military spending cuts over a ten-year period. In addition, “sequestration” cuts totaling another $500 billion were scheduled for implementation in January 2013, bringing the total cuts for the decade to nearly $1 trillion. Sequestration alone—i.e., even without the additional $487 billion in cuts—would give the U.S. its smallest number of ground forces since 1940; a Navy fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915; and the smallest tactical fighter force the Air Force has ever had. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly told Congress that the sequestration reductions would create a situation of “very high risk” to national security. “[S]equestration,” said Dempsey, “leaves me three places to go to get the money: operations, maintenance and training. That’s the definition of a hollow force.”
  • Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said, “No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy.”


Obama Administration Gave British Nuclear Codes to Russia to Help Induce Russia to Sign the New START Treaty

  • In early February 2011, the website WikiLeaks made public some 1,400 secret U.S. embassy cables which suggested that the U.S. government had covertly agreed to share sensitive information about Britain’s nuclear program—specifically, the serial numbers of every Trident missile the U.S. had supplied to Britain—in exchange for Russian cooperation in signing the New START agreement in April 2010. Although the treaty did not involve Britain, the leaked cables showed that Russia had used the negotiations to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the United States. In 2009 the Obama administration had asked London for permission to supply Moscow with details about the performance of UK missiles, but the UK refused. Britain historically has sought to maintain secrecy regarding its nuclear arsenal because of that arsenal's relatively small size.
  • Political columnist Thomas Sowell made the following observations about the Obama administration's actions vis a vis the British nuclear secrets: “To betray vital military secrets of this country's oldest, most steadfast and most powerful ally, behind the back of the British government, is something that should set off alarm bells.... Nations that ally themselves with the United States, and who cooperate in many ways to oppose the threat of international terrorism, do so at the risk of their own national safety and even survival. To make America's reciprocal commitments to them contingent on the whims of each new administration is to make other nations have to think twice about allying themselves with the U.S.”


Obama Signals that U.S. May Share Nuclear Defense Secrets with Russia

  • On January 4, 2012, Bill Gertz reported the following in The Washington Times: “President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.... U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with [Standard Missile-3 velocity] data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal. There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defenses. Officials from the State Department and Missile Defense Agency have discussed the idea of providing the SM-3 data to the Russians as part of the so-far fruitless missile-defense talks with Moscow … Their thinking is that if the Russians know the technical data, it will help allay Moscow’s fears that the planned missile defenses in Europe would be used against Russian ICBMs.”


Russia, China, and Others Aim to Expand Their Nuclear Arsenals

  • Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently said, “We should not lead anyone to temptation by our weakness. That is why under no circumstances will we give up the strategic deterrence potential and we will strengthen it.” In 2011 alone the Russian government announced that it would be buying 36 strategic ballistic missiles, 2 strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles, while also upgrading and expanding its ballistic missiles and Independently Targeted Warheads.
  • The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that both Pakistan and India “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” while “expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.”
  • China is reportedly modernizing every element of its strategic triad for delivering nuclear warheads (submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles, and weapons launched from big bombers). Moreover, there is speculation that China's nuclear arsenal—commonly believed to consist of about 240 nuclear warheads—may actually include an additional 1,000 to 3,500 nuclear devices hidden in a 5,000-mile network of underground tunnels.


OBAMA AND IMMIGRATION
(Return to Table of Contents)

Opposing Immigration Raids

  • President Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal immigrants in workplaces or housing units.


“Path to Citizenship”

  • Obama says the U.S. should “allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” He supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens, so as to “bring people out of the shadows” and allow them “to fully embrace our values and become full members of our democracy.”


Driver's Licenses for Illegals

  • Obama favors permitting illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. “When I was a state senator in Illinois,” Obama has said, “I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention. The problem we have here is not driver’s licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive. They’re here to work.”


Social Security Benefits for Illegals

  • As a senator, Obama voted in favor of allowing former illegal aliens who had previously worked at jobs under phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to someday reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have made while they were so employed.


“Family Reunification”

  • As a senator, Obama voted in favor of an amendment placing an expiration date on a point-based immigration system (i.e., a system that seeks to ensure that people with skills that society needs are given preference for entry into the United States). Obama instead advocates a system focusing on the reunification of family members, even if that means permitting the relatives of illegal aliens to join the latter in America.


The DREAM Act

  • As a U.S. senator, Obama was a supporter of the DREAM Act, legislation that would allow illegal-alien students to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents, and to earn conditional permanent residency and a path to citizenshipi. He helped to pass a state version of such a law in Illinois during his years as a state senator.


Legalizing Illegal Aliens, to Make Them Eligible for Health Care

  • On September 18, 2009, The Washington Times reported: “President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.” “Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally,” Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, “... this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”


Obama Justice Department Sues Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

  • In September 2010, the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his aggressive policies against illegal immigration. In the greater Phoenix area, Arpaio had established a hotline for the public to report immigration violations. He also had conducted numerous crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods, and he frequently raided workplaces in search of people residing in the U.S. illegally.


Changing Deportation Policy

  • In August 2011, President Obama issued an executive order to prevent potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court from moving forward if they did not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that the agency would launch a case-by-case review of 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the nation to focus on the federal government’s top priority, detaining and deporting criminals and serious violators of immigration law. Immigrants classified as low-priority cases would be eligible to receive a stay of deportation and the chance to apply for a work permit.

Obama Says He Will No Longer Deport Illegal Minors

  • In June 2012 President Obama, frustrated that Congress had thus far failed to pass the DREAM Act, issued an executive order that mimicked some of the Act's provisions. Most notably, the order stated that the administration would grant a two-year deferral from deportation to young illegal immigrants who had entered the United States as minors if they: (a) posed no criminal or security threat; (b) were successful students; or (c) were serving in the military. Obama's order also allowed those meeting these requirements to apply for work permits, provided they could demonstrate that they had been living in the United States continuously for at least five years.

    Stating that children of illegal immigrants "study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said, "it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans."

    The Obama administration estimated that the policy change would affect some 800,000 people.


Obama Administration Falsifies Its Deportation Statistics

  • In August 2012, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the Obama administration had “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost the number of deportations for which it took credit. The Border Patrol and the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are the federal government's two chief immigration law enforcement branches. The jurisdiction of Border Patrol agents runs along America's international boundaries, and the illegal immigrants those agents apprehend are generally returned directly to their country of origin—most often Mexico—rather than put into formal deportation proceedings. Because the Border Patrol's “voluntary returns” carry no significant penalties, people who are removed in this manner commonly try to re-enter the U.S. again, with no little to no risk of punishment. ICE, by contrast, generally handles the more formal deportation proceedings, where penalties can be significant. ICE also handles interior enforcement—i.e., cases involving illegals who have progressed well beyond the U.S.-Mexico border.
  • Smith’s committee found that the Obama administration for several years had been mixing many Border Patrol apprehensions with ICE's deportation statistics. When the Border Patrol numbers were subtracted, said Smith, deportations actually had declined every year since Obama first took office in 2009, dropping from approximately 395,000 that year to about 330,000 in 2011. Said Smith: “It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals. These ‘removals’ from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year—and counted each time as a removal.”


More Proof That the Obama Administration Has Long Been Falsifying Its Deportation Statistics

On April 19, 2013, National Review reported the following:

It is one of the Obama administration’s favorite talking points on immigration: It has been deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers. That bolsters its credentials on enforcement and supports the argument that, now that we’ve gotten tough on the border, it is time to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

But figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations appears to have declined significantly during the president’s term in office.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, has analyzed a set of largely unpublished official statistics on immigration-enforcement activity over the past five years. Earlier this month, Vaughan testified in court on behalf of a group of U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents who are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. The agents are seeking an injunction against a series of policy directives from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that were designed to regulate the extent to which ICE officers could initiate deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants in their custody.

In her testimony on April 8, Vaughan noted that, contrary to the administration’s claims, the number of illegal-immigrant removals has dropped 40 percent since June 2011, when ICE director John Morton issued the first of several directives outlining significant changes to the agency’s enforcement policies. “There has been a significant decline in enforcement activity as measured by the number of removals,” Vaughan says.

Deportations specifically of illegal immigrants convicted of a crime — individuals the administration says it has prioritized for removal — are similarly down, almost 40 percent since June 2011, Vaughan found. And that decline has occurred despite a significant increase in the number of illegal immigrants referred to ICE after being arrested for crimes. “There are certainly enough illegal aliens out there, especially enough criminal illegal aliens, that their numbers should be going up, not down,” Vaughan says. “So they appear to be giving a lot of free passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally.”

Removals generated by ICE’s Enforcement and Removals division, which is responsible for interior immigration enforcement, have decreased nearly 50 percent since June 2011. Vaughan says the administration has been inflating its deportation statistics by including a greater number of U.S. Border Patrol cases — illegal immigrants picked up at the border and subsequently referred to ICE — as part of its annual statistics. Border Patrol cases accounted for 56 percent of removals reported in fiscal year 2013, up from 33 percent in 2008. Typically, an individual apprehended at the southern border is simply returned to Mexico without being processed as a deportation by ICE.

Vaughan says this undermines the administration’s claim that pursuing criminal cases is its top priority. This was the primary argument that DHS secretary Janet Napolitano put forward in June 2012, when she issued a directive instructing ICE officers to refrain from initiating deportation proceedings for illegal immigrants who might qualify for “DREAM status” — immigrants who were brought here illegally, are currently enrolled in school or the military, and have not been convicted of a serious crime. “They have been justifying policies by saying it enables them to focus more on criminals,” Vaughan says. “What’s happening is actually the opposite. The majority of resources are going toward supporting Border Patrol activity.” ...

“DHS and ICE are knowingly manipulating arrest and deportation data with the specific intent of misleading the American public with regard to the enforcement of illegal immigration in our country,” [Chris Crane, who heads the union representing more than 7,000 ICE agents and officers] told reporters Thursday at a Capitol Hill press conference. “At an alarming rate, ICE arrest and deportation numbers have plummeted since 2008, clear evidence that interior enforcement has in large part been shut down over the last four years.”

Administration lawyers did not extensively challenge Vaughan’s court testimony, other than to introduce a bar graph, based on ICE statistics, showing that convicted criminals accounted for 55 percent of all deportations in fiscal year 2012. That figure is misleadingly high, Vaughan stresses, because it includes a large number of Border Patrol removals referred to ICE. In some cases that transfer process may have led to double counting, further inflating the total number of removals, she says.


Opposing the Border Fence

  • In 2005 the Bush administration initiated the construction of a virtual border fence, consisting of a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars designed to spot incursions help determine where Border Patrol agents should be deployed. The project was slated to be completed—i.e., to be monitoring most of America's souther border—by 2011. But progress was minimal, and in early 2011 the Obama administration scrapped the plan. Only 53 miles of operational “virtual fence” had been put in place.


Encouraging Immigration for Welfare-Dependent People

  • In 2012, the Obama administration watered down existing requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government-assistance programs like food stamps, housing benefits, energy assistance, and childcare services. In response, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions remarked, “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived.” Added Sessions: “More than 100 million people in the U.S., including foreign nationals, are currently receiving some form of federal welfare. Yet despite these historic figures, the Administration is aggressively trying to boost the welfare rolls among non-citizens. USDA has even entered into a partnership with the Mexican government to expand enrollment in food stamps and the fourteen other welfare programs administered by that agency. Actions like this threaten the core premise of American immigration.”


Obama's Support for “La Raza” (“The Race”)

  • In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama was a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and a path to legalization for illegal aliens. He pledged to “never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day,” and lamented that opponents of illegal immigration had created an atmosphere “that was both ugly and racist.”
  • In July 2008, candidate Obama again spoke to the National Council of La Raza. Soliciting the help of this “extraordinary” organization in his quest to “transform this nation,” he said: “The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids—when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel….”
  • A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates skyrocketed after President Obama had appointed NCLR's senior vice president, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. The year Muñoz joined the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza increased from $4.1 million to $11 million. Fully 60% of that money came from the Department of Labor, headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement.


Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Implementing the DREAM Act by Executive Fiat

The Center for Immigration Studies explains the Obama Administration's controversial "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" program and its enormous significance:

"On June 15, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] announced that most illegal aliens purporting to be under age 31 and claiming to have come to the United States as a child would be granted a two-year legalization. Further, most amnesty recipients could seek a work permit. This 'legal' status could lead to acquisition of a bona fide Social Security number. Amnesty applicants with a 'serious' criminal record may be turned down, although such an overwhelming volume of applicants will likely cause DHS to approve questionable applications, even of criminals and frauds, instead of adequately screening and denying those who would actually not qualify.

"The 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals' initiative unilaterally applies an exception-making policy known as 'deferred action,' normally reserved for use on an extraordinary, case-by-case basis, to an entire class of illegal immigrants. This step is remarkable for its breadth, covering about one-fifth of the estimated illegal population, as well as its wholesale application of what can only be described as turning the exception into the rule.

"The amnesty stratagem came about because Congress has declined to enact the DREAM Act legalization bill, despite its being introduced in a string of Congresses. The DREAM Act would confer permanent legal status on the same class of illegal aliens as DACA. The bald-faced exercise of enacting, by executive branch fiat in defiance of congressional will, any policy outcome that rightfully remains the prerogative of the legislative branch disregards the separation of powers delineated in the U.S. Constitution. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement rank-and-file have sued over the action."


DACA Completely Contradicts Obama's Lip Service to Constitutional Limitations

The Obama Administration's implementation of DACA was wholly contradictory to what the President had said at a Univision town hall on March 28, 2011:

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President".

The implementation of DACA was also contradictory to what Obama would say to a group of Latino journalists on September 28, 2011:

"I just have to continue to say, this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating [sic] the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.... [W]e live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.... We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. And nobody will be a stronger advocate for making that happen than me."

And implementation of DACA was likewise contradictory to what Obama would say on November 25, 2013: “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.”


Obama Says Illegal Immigrants Should Not Be “Expelled from Our Country”

  • During his second inaugural address as president on January 21, 2013, Obama emphasized his commitment to passing “comprehensive immigration reform” and the DREAM Act, both of which would include a path-to-citizenship for illegals currently residing in the United States: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”


Obama Says That People From Mexico "Did Not Cross the Border, The Border Crossed Them":

  • When outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is of Mexican heritage, formally stepped down from his post in early February 2013, Obama suggested that the Hispanic Cabinet member was more authentically American than the Pilgrims of New England: "His ancestors were here before the Mayflower set sail." The president then echoed a phrase common among Nativists who believe that lands belong to ethnicities rather than to countries: "[Salazar and] his family did not cross the border, the border crossed them. And that's why, when I needed somebody to lead Interior, I didn't have to look very far."

Obama Says He Is "Proud" of Immigration Activists

  • On November 29, 2013, President Obama and his wife went to the National Mall in Washington to visit 10 activists who were in the 18th day of a hunger strike protesting House inaction on immigration-reform legislation. "We are very proud of you," Obama told the activists on behalf of his administration. “I remain optimistic that we’re going to get this done. It’s more of a question of when not if. But I’d rather get it done sooner rather than later because each day, obviously, it’s not done makes it more difficult because we still have a system that’s not working for too many people.” Reiterating his view that there was still time in 2013 for the House to pass such legislation, Obama added: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”


Obama DHS Instructs Border Guards to Run Away from Illegals Throwing Rocks at Them

On March 10, 2014, the Daily Caller reported:

Top administration officials have directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.

“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves,” said the instructions, issued Mar. 7, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol.

Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by.

Agents can’t use guns against “a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents,” say the instructions.

The new instructions do allow agents to use guns to defend themselves from vehicles that drive at them. “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief that… deadly force is being used against an agent,” the new instructions say.

However, the instructions also suggest that officers be penalized if they don’t step back. Agents “should not place themselves in the path of a motor vehicle or use their body to block a vehicles’s path,” according to new instructions....

The new rules were issued at the direction of Jeh Johnston, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security....

Obama Administration Deports/Removes Almost No Illegal Alien Who Has Not Also Committed an Additional Crime

A March 2014 report by Senator Jeff Sessions stated that 98% of individuals deported from the United States in 2013 either were criminals, had been previously deported, or were apprehended while illegally crossing the border (in which case their removal from the U.S. are not deportations as commonly understood). The report noted that under Obama's ICE, illegal aliens were considered deportation-worthy only if they met at least one of the following four specific criteria: (a) they had been convicted of committing a serious criminal offense; (b) they had been apprehended while crossing the border (which, as noted above, does not constitute deportation as commonly understood); (c) they had resurfaced after having been previously deported; or (d) they had been fugitives from the law.

Said the report: “Remarkably, the first two categories—border apprehensions ... and convicted criminals—account for 94% of the 368,000 removals (235,000 and 110,000, respectively).” Only 0.2% of the illegal aliens who were actually placed into removal proceedings in 2013 did not have a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction on their record. Only .08% of the total number of illegal aliens placed into removal proceedings in 2013 were neither repeat immigration-law violators nor convicted of a serious crime. In other words, explained Sessions:

"The evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law. Under the guise of setting ‘priorities’, the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime."

ICE Released 68,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens in 2013

In March 2014, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that in 2013, U.S. immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) had 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to ICE's attention after they had been jailed in connection with a local arrest. But ICE officials followed through with immigration charges against only 195,000 of these aliens (about 27%). The other 530,000+ were released, mostly "because of current policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement, not because the aliens turned out to have legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States."

Added CIS: "Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals. In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims."

All told, more than 870,000 aliens who had been ordered deported, were still in the U.S. in defiance of the law. "Under current policies," said CIS, "an alien's family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case."

In CIS's estimation:

"The release of so many convicted criminals back into U.S. communities, when they could be removed to their home countries, is a large-scale abuse of authority that inevitably leads to public harm. There is no possible excuse or logical argument, and certainly no legal justification, for failing to deport tens of thousands of aliens with criminal convictions who have been encountered by an ICE officer. ICE has claimed it lacks the resources to deport more aliens than it has for the last several years, but it has yet to explain why it has used these resources primarily to detain and process individuals apprehended by the Border Patrol, whom the Border Patrol could remove, instead of deporting criminal aliens discovered by ICE officers in the interior. Instead, the administration has repeatedly asked Congress to give it less money for detention. This year the president's budget requests a reduction of $255 million in funding for detention space for ICE, even though they are not now maintaining custody of every alien whose detention is required by law, nor every alien who poses a risk to the public or is a flight risk."


Deportations Decline Dramatically Under Obama

In April 2014, the Daily Caller reported that according to Justice Department statistics, the number of deportations through the courts had declined by 43% since President Obama took office in 2009. This figure included new deportation cases brought by the Obama administration (of which there were 26% fewer in 2013 than in 2009), as well as deportation or removal orders from judges. (Between 2009 and 2013, the proportion of instances in which a judge decided against deportation increased from one-fifth to one-third of all cases.)

36,000 Criminals Freed While Awaiting Deportation

On May 14, 2014, CBS News reported the following about a Center for Immigration Studies report that had been made public two days earlier: 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 convicted criminal aliens last year who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings, according to a report issued Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The group of released criminals includes those convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault, according to the report, which cites a document prepared by the ICE.

A majority of the releases were not required by law and were discretionary, the organization says.

According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

- 193 homicide convictions
- 426 sexual assault convictions
- 303 kidnapping convictions
- 1,075 aggravated assault convictions
- 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
- 9,187 dangerous drug convictions
- 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
- 303 flight escape convictions

In a statement which accompanied the findings, Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, called the number of criminal aliens released "shocking." [...]

"Studies have shown that fewer than a quarter of aliens who are released from custody while awaiting the outcome of immigration proceedings will show up for immigration court to finish their case. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice should be asked to disclose how many of these criminal aliens became fugitives after their release from ICE custody," [Vaughan] continued.

The ICE issued a statement in response to the report, saying that most of the individuals described in the report were released under restrictions, such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision or surety bond.

The organizations said that in some cases, the ICE was required by law to release the individuals from custody.

"The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report. For example, mandatory releases account for over 75% of the homicides listed," the statement said. "Others, typically those with less serious offenses, were released as a discretionary matter after career law enforcement officers made a judgment regarding the priority of holding the individual, given ICE's resources, and prioritizing the detention and removal of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security."

But, Vaughan said ... the fact that the agency is admitting to having released 25% of the homicide convicts listed by their own choice is "truly alarming."

Obama Says Immigration Law Enforcement Is "Not Smart"

On May 13, 2014, President Obama told a gathering of law-enforcement officials that they should be pursuing major criminals, and not illegal immigrants who were living quietly and peacefully in their districts. Said Obama:

"You’ve got to spend time dealing with somebody who is not causing any other trouble other than the fact that they were trying to make a living for their families. That’s just not a good use of our resources. It’s not smart. It doesn’t make sense....

"Large segments of the community are afraid to report crimes or serve as witnesses because they fear the [possible deportation] consequences for themselves or their families....

"[The illegals] are folks who are woven into the fabrics of our communities. Their kids are going to school with our kids. Most of them are not making trouble; most of them are not causing crimes. And yet, we put them in this tenuous position, and it creates a situation in which your personnel, who have got to go after gang-bangers and need to be going after violent criminals and deal with the whole range of challenges, and who have to cooperate with [the federal government] around our counterterrorism activities."

Deportation Policy: Secure Communities needs 'fresh start,' Obama official says

On May 16, 2014, the Associated Press reported that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was exploring, at President Obama's behest, the possibility of bringing a "fresh start" to the so-called Secure Communities program. Said AP:

"The program allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to run fingerprints of anyone booked for a local or state crime through a federal database for immigration violations. If there's a match, ICE can ask local police and sheriffs to detain the person, and then decide whether to deport them.

"The program, which was started in 2008 under the Bush administration but has been expanded under Obama, has led to complaints that people are being deported for immigration violations without being convicted of any crime, or with only minor offenses."


Obama Administration Encourages, and Pays for, Massive Increase in Illegal Immigration

On June 6, 2014, the Obama administration announced that it would be paying approximately 100 American lawyers to help young illegal immigrants -- a rapidly growing demographic -- settle in the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder said that these hundred-or-so attorneys -- dubbed “justice AmericaCorps” -- would “protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society … particularly young people who must appear in immigration proceedings.”

The number of youths illegally crossing the border into the southern U.S. -- mainly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador -- had reached staggering proportions since 2012, when President Obama had announced that his administration would no longer deport minors who were in the country illegally, so long as they met certain basic requirements. Whereas in 2011 about 6,000 young people were apprehended by border personnel, government officials estimated that the corresponding totals would exceed 90,000 in 2014 and 140,000 in 2015. None of these figures included the many tens of thousands more who had avoided, and would avoid, capture.

In response to the crisis, the Obama administration asked Congress for $3.7 billion to help house, feed and transport the children. CBS News reported: "Immigration officials, by policy, do not keep children in detention. They are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to be housed in shelters until they can be reunited with parents or guardians."

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Brownsville, Texas, explained the border crisis this way: "[The government] has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws."

Many saw Obama's decision to allow this massive influx of illegal border-crossers as a strategy designed to flood the United States with young people whose grim circumstances would make them politically impossible to deport. In this way, the president could fundamentally transform the U.S. population by the sheer force of numbers. A statement released by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers said:

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes. Certainly, we are not gullible enough to believe that thousands of unaccompanied minor Central American children came to America without the encouragement, aid and assistance of the United States government.”

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) told radio host Steve Malzberg that Obama's motivation for allowing illegals to swarm across the border was as follows: "In the end they have said they want to turn Texas blue, they want to turn America blue. And if you bring in hundreds of thousands or millions of people and give them the ability to vote, and tell them ... 'if you want to keep getting the benefits you have to go vote' ... that drives people to vote and it would ensure Republicans will never get elected again."

The Daily Mail reported that many of the young people entering the U.S. illegally were gang members:

"Border Patrol agents overwhelmed by a recent influx of immigrant children crossing the border illegally have been knowingly letting gang members enter the country. Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, Arizona told the National Review that officers who recognize gang tattoos on the minors are supposed to treat them like everyone else. For the most part, that means letting these unaccompanied children be reunited with their parents or other relatives already living in the United States."

Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Board Patrol Council Local 3307, described the brazen fearlessness exhibited by many of the illegals:

"I've heard people come in and say, 'You're going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You're going to let me go as well, and the government's going to take care of us.'"

Various diseases were also widespread among the border-crossers.

The Obama administration relocated thousands of these illegal minors to cities in various places across the United States, without informing state or local authorities in those places, and without revealing the locations of the youmgsters.

Many of the youngsters were traveling alone in search of their parents who were already in the U.S. illegally. The Blaze.com reported: "Like most children who come, they made the dangerous trek believing that they would not be deported once they arrive. Some traveled clinging to the top of the train known as 'The Beast' from Central America, or piled in overcrowded buses until they reached the border towns of Mexico."

In many cases, the children’ parents had paid thousands of dollars to “polleros” — a Spanish term meaning “chicken herders” — to smuggle their children through the Rio Grande crossing. "Some of that money," said The Blaze.com, "is then paid to the drug cartels, mainly the Gulf Cartel, which controls the territory on the Mexican side of the river."

When questioned by Border Patrol, the children and adults alike consistently responded with identical, obviously rehearsed answers. Specifically, they claimed credible fear that they would be harmed or killed by violent gangs in their homelands. “It’s something they’re all saying and it’s obvious that it is well-rehearsed and it is a consistent story,” said Rio Grande Valley sector Border Patrol agent Albert Spratte. “We can’t even get them to answer their name before they tell us the gangs were the reason they fled their country.”

It was common knowledge among the border crossers that their relatives and friends who had already entered the U.S. illegally, had each received a document ordering them “to appear in court” within 90 days, and that this document had allowed them safe passage throughout the country.

But virtually none of the illegals ever reported to a court at any time thereafter. Most simply disappeared into existing immigrant communities throughout the U.S. without fear of deportation. “They have heard that anybody who crosses into the United States can stay,” said one Border Patrol agent at the site of the chaotic influx of illegals. “So they keep coming.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, meanwhile, emphasized that the U.S. would continue exempting young people from America’s immigration laws: “[A]lmost all of us agree that a child who crossed our border illegally with a parent, or in search of a parent or a better life, was not making an adult choice to break our laws and should be treated differently than adult law-breakers.” 

Notwithstanding the high unemployment rate (about 20%) among American young adults without high-school diplomas, Johnson announced that 560,000 illegal immigrants would soon be given formal work authorization in the United States. Meanwhile, the Obama Labor Department had recently authorized the admission of an additional 100,000 guest workers.

By July 2014, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) was reporting that the illegal minors from Central America were being permitted to board U.S. passenger jets without having any identification; the only papers they need to show airline employees were their Notice to Appear forms -- simple printouts with no photo or security features.

Hector Garza, the spokesman for one of the NBPC's branches, explained: "This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel.... Not only are we releasing unknown illegal aliens onto American streets, but we are allowing them to travel commercially using paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer.... We do not know who these people are ... We know nothing about most of them, ICE releases them into the American public, and now they are boarding aircraft at will with a simple paper document."

An NBPC statement backed up Garza's claims: "The fact that TSA is accepting the I-862 [Notice to Appear] as a form of identification and allowing illegal aliens to travel commercially shows just how little regard the federal government has for its own immigration laws."

Garza also reported: "Approximately 70 percent of the border patrol agents have been reassigned for administrative duties including processing of aliens, transporting aliens, and ... leaving a porous border in the country."

Obama Administration Falsely Claims to Have Been Surprised by the Sudden Influx of Unaccompanied Illegal Minors

The Obama administration claimed to have been surprised by the wave of Central American children flooding across the southern U.S. border. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that on January 29, 2014 -- less than five months earlier -- the federal government had posted an advertisement seeking bids for a vendor contract to handle 65,000 "Unaccompanied Alien Children." That figure is highly significant, in light of the fact that the highest number (of unaccompanied alien minors) ever previously encountered in a given year was 5,000.

Obama Administration Has Delivered 290,000 Illegals to U.S. Homes

On July 5, 2014, the Daily Caller reported:

The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.

The 290,000 illegals — so far — are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.

Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

Illegal Immigrant Flood Makes U.S. Vulnerable to Hamas and Hezbollah, Which Are Known to Be Working with Mexican Drug Cartels

The uncontrolled crossing of America's southern border left the U.S. vulnerable to possible attack by Islamic terrorists and jihadists, who had long been known to be working with Mexican drug cartels and, in fact, to already have a presence in the United States. At a March 2012 hearing, for instance, House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King said that "at a minimum" there are hundreds of "soldiers of Hezbollah" inside the United States.

At the same hearing, Michael Braun, the former chief of operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified that Mexican drug cartels were in "very close contact" with Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda. He then warned of a "nightmare scenario" in which Hezbollah and the Iranian al Quds force "focus on our Southwest border and use that as perhaps a springboard in attacking our country." Added Braun: "If anyone thinks for a moment that Hezbollah and the [Iranian] Quds Force, the masters at leveraging and exploiting existing illicit infrastructures globally, are not going to focus on our Southwest border and use that as perhaps a springboard in attacking our country, then they just don’t understand how the real underworld works.”

Rep. King, meanwhile, told the hearing, "we know" that Iranian-supported Hezbollah "is in America" and "has been trained to lie low for years." Added King:

"Since 9/11, America's counter-terror officials have focused on finding al Qaeda operatives inside America, as weill as homegrown radicalized Islamist extremists ready to perpetrate violence against our people. Now, as Iran moves closer to nuclear wepaons, and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran's secret operatives and their No. 1 terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America.... We know Hezbollah operatives are here. The question is whether these Hezbollah operatives have the capacity to carry out attacks on the homeland, and how quickly they can become fully operational. More than 20 federal investigation since 9/11 identified by the majority's investigative staff offer a chilling view of Iranian and Hezbollah's operations inside the United States.... So will Iran launch terror strikes inside our homeland if it feels threatened? In light of last year's bomb plot, in light of the 20 Hezbollah cases prosecuted since 9/11, and in light of Hezbollah attacks overseas, we have a duty to prepare for the worst."

Obama Honors Illegal Aliens

On June 17, 2014, the Obama White House honored ten young illegal immigrants who had come to the United States as minors and had qualified for the president’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program -- enacted through an executive order in 2012 -- which had spared such young people from deportation. Obama honored the ten as “Champions of Change,” because they “serve as success stories and role models in their academic and professional spheres.”

Obama Holds Fundraiser with Producer of Film That Advocated Violence Against Opponents of Illegal Immigration

In early July 2014, President Obama held a fundraiser at the luxurious Austin, Texas home of filmmaker Robert Rodriguez, director of the 2010 movie Machete. Tickets to the fundraiser were priced between $5,000 and $32,400.

Machete was a highly violent and racist movie whose trailer was released with “a special Cinco de Mayo message for Arizona.” It ended with illegal aliens massacring the fictional version of Minutemen Project volunteers. (The Minutemen Project was a volunteer, grassroots effort initiated in April 2005 by private citizens who monitored sections of the Arizona-Mexico border in an effort to assist the undermanned Border Patrol.)

A Breitbart.com review of the film read as follows:

"The story of a former Mexican 'Federale' ... framed for the attempted assassination of a racist Texas State Senator ... is both racial and racist. Machete isn’t about a political call for the powerless to fight THE corrupt MAN, it’s a call for revolution; Mexicans against Americans -- and in the words of the character meant to be our evolving conscience, Jessica Alba’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Sartana, it’s about how those who believe in only LEGAL immigration 'deserve to be cut down.' This is her rousing, fist-in-the-air message to a gathered army of illegal day laborers who have been patiently waiting for the call away from their jobs as dishwashers, gardeners and hotel maids to wage war against a cruel America ..."


Obama Vows to Reduce Deportations


On July 16, 2014, President Obama reassured members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that he would use his executive authority later that year to reduce deportations of illegal immigrant families who had lived and worked in the United States for years.

Obama Considers Actively Importing Illegal Aliens from Honduras, and Transporting them to U.S.

On July 24, 2014, White House officials announced that President Obama was considering creating a pilot program which would give refugee status to young people from Honduras while they were still in their home country, and would transport them by plane to the U.S., so as to allow them to avoid making the dangerous and onerous northward trek through Mexico on foot or by train. According to the White House, this program would start in Honduras and be limited in scope, but if successful could be expanded to include youngsters from other Central American countries as well. If the plan were to be implemented, it would represent the first time in world history that any nation had taken such action. 

The Obama administration claimed that this plan was intended as a measure to slow the influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America. But critics quickly pointed out that in fact it would increase the flow of illegals. Moreover, radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted that the program would soon lead to the importation of the children's parents as well:

"Are they [the children] gonna turn around at the top step [as they board a plane to the U.S.] and wave bye to mom and dad? And if they do, what is up with that?  Who in the world would permit that? So at some point you have to believe that the [Obama] Regime will start tugging at our heart strings and say, 'You know, these kids are here without their parents! We can't allow that to happen,' and then they'll act like there's a big effort being made to find their parents, and then bring them here."

Obama Considers Granting Work Authorization to Millions of Illegals

On July 24, 2014, Time.com reported: "When President Obama issues executive orders on immigration in coming weeks, pro-reform activists are expecting something dramatic: temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants."

It was also being reported extensively that Obama's executive actions would probably include an expansion of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program, so as to encompass an additional 5 to 6 million adult illegal immigrants.

Obama Sees Racism As the Cause of Opposition to Immigration Reform 

In an August 2014 interview with The Economist, President Obama derided "the dysfunction of a Republican Party that knows we need immigration reform, knows that it would actually be good for its long-term prospects, but is captive to the nativist elements in its party."

Armed and Violent Criminals Among the Illegal Border Crossers

In early August 2014, Larry Spence, the sheriff leading the investigation into the brutal slaying of Border Control Agent Javier Vega Jr. by two illegal immigrants who had previously been deported six times between them, reported that local farmers in his county were seeing gangs of Mexicans "in military fatigues" -- some armed with rifles -- walking single-file through their fields. According to Spence, the problem on the border was reaching a crisis point.

OBAMA AND WELFARE POLICY
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama's Mushrooming Welfare State

  • From 2008 to 2011, federal welfare assistance (in America's 79 means-tested federal welfare programs) grew by 32%, from $563.413 billion to $745.84 billion annually. According to Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector, the spike in federal welfare spending during Obama’s first two years in office was two-and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in American history, after adjusting for inflation.
  • According to a CNS News report, “Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history ... a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans ...”


Obama Has Long Opposed Welfare Reform

  • When he was an Illinois state senator in 1996, Obama spoke from the floor against implementing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which was ultimately passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That welfare-reform bill placed certain limitations on how long a household could continue to receive benefits, and instituted a work requirement designed to move people off the welfare rolls and into paying jobs. Ultimately, PRWORS reduced the number of households participating in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFCDC) program by 60%, from 5.1 million to 2 million.
  • Upon joining the U.S. Senate in January 2005, Obama quickly set out to undermine the welfare-reform law. Consider that in 2005, Congress closed a loophole that had permitted some states to circumvent the legislation by defining as “work” such activities as bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands. Obama strongly objected to the closure of that loophole.


Ending the Work Requirements for Welfare

  • On July 12, 2012, President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a policy directive eliminating the federal work requirements that were the essential ingredient of the 1996 welfare-reform bill (PRWORA). Thus did Obama promote the further expansion of the American welfare state.


OBAMA AND THE CONSTITUTION / SUPREME COURT
(Return to Table of Contents)

The Constitution As a “Living Document”

  • In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama expresses his belief that the U.S. Constitution is a living document (subject to constant reinterpretation and change), and states that, as President, he would not appoint a strict constructionist (a Justice who seeks to apply the text as it is written and without further inference) to the Supreme Court: “When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected. Others, like Justice Breyer, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far—that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account. I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”


Emphasis on a Justice's “Heart” and on Helping “the Weak,” Rather Than on Abiding by the Law

  • When President Bush in 2005 nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then-Senator Obama stated that few Supreme Court cases involve any controversy at all, “so that both a [conservative like] Scalia and a [leftist like] Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases.” In the other 5 percent, he said, “the critical ingredient” was neither the law nor the Constitution says, but rather “what is in the judge’s heart.” Obama said in a floor speech on September 22, 2005: “[W]hen I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak ... he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process … he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
  • Obama was also “deeply troubled” by “the philosophy, ideology and record” of yet another Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. “[W]hen you look at his record,” Obama said in a floor speech on January 26, 2006, “when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.”
  • Explaining the criteria by which he would appoint judges to the federal bench, presidential candidate Obama declared: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges.”


Obama Appoints Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court (May 2009)

  • In her college yearbook, Sotomayor selected, as her special quotation, the following statement of Norman Thomas, who ran for U.S. president six times on the Socialist Party ticket: “I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won.”
  • In the early 1990s, Sotomayor spoke publicly and proudly about the role that affirmative action (racial and ethnic preferences) had played in her educational background: “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican ... I was accepted rather readily at Princeton, and equally as fast at Yale. But my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates, and that's been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action, to try to balance out those effects.”
  • In 1998 the Family Research Council named Sotomayor as the recipient of its Court Jester Award, mocking her decision to extend the application of the Americans With Disabilities Act to a woman who had cited her own inability to read as the “handicap” that caused her to fail the New York State bar exam several times.
  • In 2001 Sotomayor gave a speech at UC Berkeley, during which she suggested, approvingly, that making the federal bench more “diverse”—in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, or sexual orientation—“will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”
  • Refuting the notion that judges should not permit personal traits (race, gender, ethnicity) to influence their legal decisions, Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This assertion by Sotomayor was not an isolated incident. Indeed, she delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested “a wise Latina woman” or “wise woman” judge might “reach a better conclusion” than a male judge.
  • Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza, which favors mass immigration and ever-increasing rights for illegal immigrants. Awash in a victim mentality, she describes Latinos as one of America’s “economically deprived populations” which, like “all minority and women’s groups,” are filled with people “who don’t make it in our society at all.” Attributing those failures to inequities inherent in American life, Sotomayor affirms her commitment to “serving the underprivileged of our society” by promoting affirmative action and other policies designed to help those who “face enormous challenges.”
  • In a 2005 panel discussion for law students, Sotomayor said that a “court of appeals is where policy is made”—a candid rejection of the long-accepted principle that a judge's proper role is to interpret the law rather than to create it. Then, remembering that the event was being recorded, Sotomayor added immediately: “And I know—I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m—you know.”
  • Sotomayor is an advocate of legal realism, which the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes as a judicial philosophy that is “diametrically opposed to the concept of strict construction/originalism as advocated by conservative legal thinkers and judges.” TVC adds that according to legal realism: “[J]udges should do more than interpret the law or look to the original intent of the writers of the law or the Constitution. Judges should bring in outside influences from social sciences, psychology and politics, plus their own views, to craft the law….” Suggesting that the public wrongly expects “the law to be static and predictable,” Sotomayor contends that courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the laws and adapting it [sic] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”


Obama Appoints Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court (May 2010)

  • A week after Ronald Reagan’s presidential victory in November 1980, Kagan, who was then a student at Princeton University, wrote in the campus newspaper that her immediate “gut response” to Reagan's election had been to conclude “that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead, and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused.” Soon thereafter Kagan predicted, with a hopeful spirit, that “the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.”
  • The following year, Kagan penned her senior thesis—titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”—wherein she lamented that “a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States”; that “Americans are more likely to speak of … capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness”; and that “the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter.” Kagan called these developments “sad” and “chastening” for “those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”
  • As a young lawyer, Kagan clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, whom she now identifies as her hero. Regarding affirmative action, Marshall infamously told fellow Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “You [white] guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it's our [blacks'] turn.”
  • In one of her legal writings, Kagan cited Thurgood Marshall's assertion that the Constitution, “as originally drafted and conceived,” was “defective.” This view is consistent with President Obama's contention that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Kagan has also quoted Justice Marshall saying that the Supreme Court's mission is to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged,” rather than simply to interpret the law.
  • In an article she wrote for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan indicated that there could be instances where the government might justifiably interfere with the right to free speech: “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action—which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate—then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.” This position has profound implications as regards the future of conservative talk radio.
  • Kagan served under President Clinton in various capacities. During her years in the Clinton White House, she supported race preferences in the form of affirmative action.
  • During her tenure as dean at Harvard Law School, Kagan co-signed a letter urging the Senate not to adopt an amendment that would have protected the White House from lawsuits filed by foreign terrorists charging that their “constitutional rights” had been violated by American law-enforcement and intelligence authorities.
  • In 2006, Kagan instituted three new courses to the required curriculum at Harvard Law. One of these courses focuses on public international law; another deals with international economic law and multinational financial transactions; the third is a comparative law class whose purpose is to “introduce students to one or more legal systems outside our own, to the borrowing and transmission of legal ideas across borders, and to a variety of approaches to substantive and procedural law that are rooted in distinct cultures and traditions.” While adding these three required courses, Kagan eliminated a requirement for students to take at least one constitutional law class at any time during their legal education.


OBAMA AND ABORTION
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama's Stance on Abortion

  • During his years as a state and federal legislator, Obama consistently voted in favor of expanding abortion rights and the funding of abortion services with taxpayer dollars. Says author David Freddoso, “I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.”
  • In July 2006 Obama voted against a bill stipulating that the parents of minor girls who get out-of-state abortions must be notified of their daughters' actions. In March 2008 he voted against a bill prohibiting minors from crossing state lines to gain access to abortion services. That same month, he voted “No” on defining an unborn child as a human being eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  • On July 17, 2007, Obama declared: “The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” This bill would have effectively terminated all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. It would also have invalidated state laws that protected medical personnel from losing their jobs if they refused to participate in abortion procedures.


Obama's Support for Planned Parenthood

  • The largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood in 2008 alone was responsible for 324,008 abortions, as compared to just 2,405 adoption referrals. This ratio was representative of the organization's activities in most years.
  • On July 17, 2007, Obama thanked Planned Parenthood for “the outstanding work” it was doing “for women all across the country and for families all across the country.... I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.”
  • During an April 26, 2013 speech to Planned Parenthood, Obama said: “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”


Obama and Partial-Birth Abortion

  • When Obama was a state senator in 1997, two separate “partial-birth abortion” bans came up for consideration. On both occasions Obama voted “present,” the functional equivalent of a vote against the ban. The term “partial-birth abortion” refers to a procedure where the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits the baby's entire body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses scissors to puncture the baby's brain and kill it (while the head is still inside the mother).
  • In 2000, Obama voted against a bill that would have ended state funding for partial-birth abortions.


A Legalized Form of Infanticide

  • In 2002 Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that somehow survived late-term abortion procedures. The Act twice came up in the Judiciary Committee on which Obama served. At its first reading he voted “present,” the functional equivalent of voting against it. At the second reading, he voted “No.” The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after 2003. As chairman, he chose never to call the bill up for a vote.


Obama Strikes Down Rule that Prohibited U.S. Funding of Abortion Clinics Overseas

  • On January 23, 2009—the day after the 36th anniversary of the famous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision—President Obama struck down a rule that had prohibited U.S. money from being used to fund international family-planning clinics that either promote abortion or provide referrals to abortion services. Stating that such restrictions on funding had been used as a “political wedge issue,” the President said that he had “no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”


Obama Issues Edict Forcing Religious Healthcare Providers to Violate Their Own Views on Abortion and Contraception

  • In January 2012 the Obama administration issued an edict mandating that religious hospitals, schools, charities, and other health and social service providers give their employees health-insurance plans covering contraception, abortifacient pills, and sterilizations—even if those things were in violation of the employers' moral or religious codes. Critics pointed out that Obama's edict violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
  • On February 10, 2012, the Obama administration, reacting to harsh public criticism, announced that: “If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.”
  • According to pro-life Rep. Chris Smith: “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naive or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.... The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction. It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
  • Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League stated that the new rule amounted to a “shell game.” “At the end of the day, religious employers are still required to provide insurance plans that offer free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients in violation of their moral tenets,” he said.


43 Catholic Organizations Sue the Obama Administration

  • In May 2012, a total of 43 plaintiffs filed 12 separate federal lawsuits against the Obama administration, challenging the constitutionality of its mandate that religious entities must purchase insurance policies covering contraception and abortion-related procedures.


OBAMA AND EDUCATION
(Return to Table of Contents)

More Taxpayer Expenditures As the “Solution” to All Schooling-Related Problems

  • In his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stressed the importance of increasing government expenditures on public education. “We're going to put more money into education than we have,” he said. “We have to invest in human capital.”
  • Obama’s education plan called for “investing” $10 billion annually in a comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan that would “provide critical supports to young children and their parents.” These funds would be used to “create or expand high-quality early care and education programs for pregnant women and children from birth to age five”; to “quadruple the number of eligible children for Early Head Start”; to “ensure [that] all children have access to pre-school”; to “provide affordable and high-quality child care that will … ease the burden on working families”; to allow “more money” to be funneled “into after-school programs”; and to fund “home visiting programs [by health-care personnel] to all low-income, first-time mothers.”
  • Consider Obama's perspective on the low graduation rates of nonwhite minorities: “Latinos have such a high dropout rate. What you see consistently are children at a very early age are starting school already behind. That’s why I’ve said that I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need so that they know their numbers, their colors, their letters.”
  • Obama's stimulus package included approximately $100 billion for education.


In Reality, More Money Does Not Buy Better Education

  • American taxpayers have already been spending $600 billion per year on public elementary and secondary schools, with average per-pupil expenditures nationwide approaching $11,000 annually. In the District of Columbia, the per-pupil spending figure is over $16,000 per year—among the highest for any city in the United States. Yet DC’s public schools are the worst in the country, as measured by student scores. Detroit likewise spends about $16,000 yearly on the education of each public school pupil. Yet, when tested, fourth- and eighth-graders in that city’s public schools read at a level that is 73% below the national average. In Trenton, New Jersey, whose population is more than 80% black and Hispanic, the government spends some $20,663 per public school pupil, while the citywide high-school graduation rate is a mere 41%. And in Camden, New Jersey, where nearly 90% of all residents are black or Hispanic, the city spends roughly $16,000 per pupil, yet only 38.6% of the city's public school children ever obtain a high-school diploma.


Obama Opposes School Voucher Programs

  • President Obama opposes voucher programs designed to permit parents to divert a portion of their tax liabilities away from the public-school system, and to use those funds instead to help cover the tuition costs for private schools to which they might prefer to send their children.
  • Obama's opposition to vouchers is consistent with the stance of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association (NEA) and the 1.5 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT). These unions rank among the most powerful political forces in the United States. The NEA, for instance, employs a larger number of political organizers than the Republican and Democratic National Committees combined. Of the $59 million in combined campaign donations which the NEA and AFT have made during the past two decades, more than $56 million (i.e., 95%) has gone to Democrats. That figure represents merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg, for it does not include expenditures on such politically oriented initiatives as television ads or get-out-the-vote efforts.


OBAMA AND GUN RIGHTS
(Return to Table of Contents)

  • During his time teaching at the University of Chicago, Obama told then-colleague John Lott directly: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”
  • As a candidate for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama promised to support a ban on “the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns.”
  • In 1998 Obama supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns.
  • While running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama spoke in favor of federal legislation to block citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits. “National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents,” he said.
  • That same year (2004), Obama spoke in favor of banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have effectively shut down almost all gun stores.
  • Senator Obama supported Washington, DC's comprehensive gun ban, which prevented district residents from possessing handguns even in their own homes; required that long guns be kept locked and disassembled; and lacked a provision allowing the guns to be reassembled in the event of an emergency.


OBAMA AND ACORN: A CORRUPT, UNHOLY ALLIANCE
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Worked for ACORN

  • In the early 1990s, Barack Obama worked for Project Vote, the voter-mobilization arm of the pro-socialist community organization ACORN. Moreover, Obama was the attorney for ACORN's lead election-law cases, and he worked as a trainer at ACORN's annual conferences, where he taught members of the organization the art of radical community organizing.


“All of You [Will] Help Us Shape the Agenda”

  • During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama was a featured speaker at one particularly notable political event in which ACORN played a prominent role—a December 1, 2007 forum exclusively for thousands of community organizers from across the United States. He was introduced to the crowd by Deepak Bhargava, ACORN's leader of community reinvestment and fair housing. In his introductory remarks, Bhargava characterized America as “a society that is still deeply structured by racism and sexism.” In his subsequent remarks, Obama said: “[B]efore I even get inaugurated, during the transition we're gonna be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. 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.”


“I've Always Been a Partner with ACORN”

  • In a 2007 interview with ACORN representatives, candidate Obama said the following: “You know you've got a friend in me. And I definitely welcome ACORN's input. You don't have to ask me about that. I'm going to call you even if you didn't ask me.... When I ran Project Vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.... Once I was elected, there wasn't a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn't right there with you.... Since I have been in the United States Senate I've been always a partner with ACORN as well.... I've been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.”


ACORN and Corruption in Obama's 2008 Campaign

  • Obama's 2008 presidential campaign furnished the ACORN affiliate Project Vote with a list of donors who had already contributed (to the campaign) the maximum amount of money permitted by law. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, DC staffer for Project Vote, later revealed that her organization had contacted these big donors and urged them to give money to Project Vote—money which could then be funneled directly into the Obama campaign coffers, thereby evading election-law limits on campaign contributions.
  • Obama's 2008 presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN front group known as Citizens' Services Inc, whose headquarters were located at precisely the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana, for voter-registration services.
  • As the 2008 presidential campaigns progressed, ACORN began to make headlines for two major reasons. First, the organization was under investigation in 14 separate states for massive voter-registration fraud. Strongly pro-Democrat, ACORN claimed to have registered 4 million new voters during the preceding four years. Many tens of thousands of these registrations already had been found to be fraudulent—they bore phony names, fake or nonexistent addresses, inaccurate personal information, duplicate signatures, etc. The full extent of the fraud, however, was impossible to determine.


Obama Deceptively Minimizes His Ties to ACORN

  • In an October 15, 2008 presidential debate, Republican John McCain raised the issue of Obama’s ties to ACORN. Obama replied to McCain as follows: “The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.”
  • Obama also stated that his presidential campaign had not used ACORN's voter-registration services—deceptively omitting the fact that it had paid $800,000+ to the ACORN subsidiary Citizens' Services Inc. for voter-registration services.


OBAMA & THE POLICIES THAT LED TO THE HOUSING & ECONOMIC CRISIS
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Litigates in Favor of Pressuring Banks to Make Risky Loans to Minorities

  • In 1993, attorney Barack Obama took a job as a litigator of employment and voting-rights cases with the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In a 1994 class action lawsuit known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow Davis Miner lawyers represented ACORN in pressuring Citibank to make more mortgage loans to marginally qualified black applicants.
  • As author Jerome Corsi points out: “ACORN Housing, then a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 cities, used the Citibank litigation to push the group’s radical agenda to get subprime homebuyers mortgages under the most favorable terms available.”
  • Four years later, a beleaguered Citibank—anxious to put an end to the incessant smears (charging racism) that Obama and his fellow litigators were hurling in its direction (to say nothing of its mounting legal bills)—settled the case by agreeing to increase its lending to minority applicants who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. Thus was a veneer of legal legitimacy given to the disastrous lending practices that eventually mushroomed into the subprime-mortgage debacle and, ultimately, the housing-market crisis of 2008—a crisis Obama blamed largely on the “greed” of Wall Street bankers and the excesses of free market capitalism.
  • Obama's stance in favor of lending practices like those promoted in Buycks-Roberson were consistent with the dictates of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Put in place by the Carter administration in 1977 and reinforced aggressively by the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, the CRA mandated that banks, in the spirit of “social justice,” make special efforts to seek out and lend to mortgage applicants—particularly nonwhite minorities—who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. As Forbes magazine points out, “Obama has been a staunch supporter of the CRA throughout his public life.”
  • Obama commonly takes issue with opponents who would prefer to permit the banking industry to function without a meddlesome federal government forcing it to engage in lending practices that defy common sense. He routinely accuses those adversaries of seeking to repeat “the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.” But in fact, the policies that created the “mess” were precisely those government-imposed measures that Obama himself supported.


Seeking to Revive and Str
engthen the Community Reinvestment Act

  • Notwithstanding the economic calamity brought about by the CRA and similar policies, in the latter part of June 2009 the Obama administration sought to strengthen the CRA. Specifically, the administration laid out its position in a Treasury Department white paper titled “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation,” which called for the creation of a new super-regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, whose “core function” would be, among other things, to promote “rigorous application” of the CRA.
  • Along the same lines, Obama also supported the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009, which was introduced by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and 50 other co-sponsors (all Democrats). This bill called for expanding the CRA to include not just banks but also credit unions, insurance companies, and mortgage lenders.
  • In July 2011 it was reported that the Obama Justice Department was again pressuring banks to either increase the number of risky loans they made to minority applicants, or face charges of discrimination. Justice Department prosecutors had already wrested more than $20 million in set-asides from lending institutions fearful of being branded as racist for maintaining common-sense loan standards.
  • In April 2013 the Washington Post reaported that the Obama administration was pushing banks to make more loans to people with weak credit ratings; that Obama and his economic advisers had concluded that the “housing rebound” was “leaving too many people behind”—most notably, undercapitalized first-time homebuyers and nonwhite minorities with low credit scores. To remedy this situation, the administration instructed banks to rely less on the time-tested, race-neutral lending criteria that historically had served as reliable barometers of credit-worthiness—income, net worth, credit history, etc.   Instead, the administration said that banks should “use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan” because, as Obama's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commissioner put it, “there are lots of creditworthy borrowers ... all the way down the credit-score spectrum.” And if this policy ultimately caused borrowers to default on their loans, “taxpayer-backed programs”—including those offered by the FHA—would pick up the tab.


THE "FAST & FURIOUS" GUN SCANDAL
(Return to Table of Contents)

  • In the fall of 2011, controversy arose over the role that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder may have played in approving “Fast & Furious,” a program which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (ATF)—an agency of the Justice Department—had administered during 2009-10. In that initiative, the ATF sold some 2,500 guns—including 34 sniper rifles with an effective lethal range of approximately 2,000 meters—to “straw purchasers” in the U.S. who agreed to subsequently smuggle the guns into Mexico and put them in the hands of cartel leaders, who supposedly were to be arrested at some subsequent point.
  • The entire “Fast & Furious” operation ended with only 20 indictments of straw purchasers—all of whom were already familiar to U.S. authorities from the outset. Moreover, the program was linked directly to two weapons found on the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in Arizona in December 2010. By the fall of 2011, the weapons that had been transferred as part of “Fast & Furious” had been used in at least 200 murders in Mexico. They also had been identified at 11 additional crime scenes in the United States.


The Motivation Behind Fast & Furious

RedState.com offers an incisive analysis of the political motivations underlying Fast & Furious:

... The Obama Administration knew that they had to find a new way to justify restrictions on American gun owners, preferably without having to deal with the legislature.

Enter the “Fast and Furious” program, a plan that would let a bunch of weapons cross the border into Mexico, knowing full well that eventually, some of those guns would be bound to turn up in criminal hands there, perhaps being used in violent confrontations between gangs, or even in shoot-outs with Mexican law enforcement. With the levels of drug and gang violence in Mexico, it was a good bet.

Then, after a number of the tracked guns were used in criminal acts, the plan was that Mexico would make a very loud and vigorous “protest” to the U.S. government, demanding that “something be done” about all those American guns that are “flooding into Mexico” -- giving Obama a talking point in order to ratchet up U.S. gun control, while providing Mexican officials with a convenient scapegoat for their own inability to stop the carnage. Both the American and the Mexican administrations win.

Which brings us to the essence of the strategy behind “Fast and Furious.” Once the “gun problem” involved relations between two sovereign nations, it would then no longer be merely a domestic matter, it would be an international “crisis” -- a matter of foreign policy. And in case you forgot your high school civics, foreign policy is the sole province of the Executive Branch, in other words, the President.

Which means Barak Obama would have had a whole range of options previously unavailable in his war on guns.

The president could push through an international agreement with Mexico, which would naturally involve “measures to control the flow of illegal guns” -- like closing down gun shows, for example. He could also sign on to an even broader “small arms” treaty like the one the U.N. has had simmering on the back burner for several years. Or, he could simply issue a series of  Executive Orders....

But then Agent Terry was killed, placing both the ATF and the Obama Administration in an embarrassing predicament, exposing the fact that the United States government was “holding the door open” for gun runners, who had now killed an American, enraging civilians and law enforcement alike. That was not in the plan....

[O]ne would have to be terminally naive, or simply clueless, to actually believe that an operation of this magnitude, especially one that involved allowing guns to illegally flow into a foreign country, could have been created, let alone implemented, without the direct involvement and approval of both the Attorney General’s office and the White House. That Obama and Holder weren’t even aware of it is simply inconceivable.

Thus we are left with only one inescapable conclusion, and that is that the President of the United States and his Attorney General Eric Holder were complicit in an attempt to fabricate an international crisis in order to advance their anti-gun agenda, and in doing so, have facilitated the deaths of an untold number of innocent victims. Which also means that, in a very real sense, Agent Brian Terry’s blood is on their hands.

(Columnist Ann Coulter offers additional insights into the motivations that underpinned "Fast and Furious," which she characterizes as "the most shockingly vile corruption scandal in the history of the country." To read Coulter's analysis, click here.)

 

  • While being questioned under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2011, Holder indicated that he had known nothing about Fast & Furious until about April 2011. But soon thereafter, a newly discovered memo (dated July 2010) showed that Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, had already told Holder that straw buyers in the Fast & Furious operation “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.” Other documents also indicated that Holder had begun receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center no later than July 5, 2010. Moreover, former ATF special agent William Newell testified under oath that “the DHS, IRS, DEA, ATF, ICE and the Obama Justice Department were all involved” in the operation.
  • In 2011 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena instructing Holder to turn over all internal Justice Department documents related to the Fast & Furious program. As of late June, 2012, the Justice Department had supplied fewer than 8% of the 80,000 documents the congressional investigators sought. (Further, the Justice Department had blocked 48 of the 70 Justice Department officials who were  involved in Fast and Furious, from testifying.) House Republicans continued to pressure the Attorney General to turn over the remaining documents, but Holder refused.
  • On June 20, 2012, President Obama granted a request by Holder to exert executive privilege over the documents in question. That same day, the House Committee—having exhausted all other means of obtaining the documents from the Justice Department—voted 23 to 17 (in a vote that was split along party lines) to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failing to produce the missing documents.
  • On June 28, 2012, the full House of Representatives voted 255-67 to uphold the criminal contempt charge against Holder. The vote represented the first time a U.S. Attorney General had ever been held in contempt by a chamber of Congress. Minutes after the criminal contempt vote, the House voted 258-95 (with 21 Democrats joining the Republican majority) to pursue a civil contempt case against Holder in court.
  • On September 19, 2012, the Justice Department's own inspector general issued a report saying there was no evidence that Holder had known about Fast & Furious. Instead, the report blamed a total of 18 DOJ officials, most notably the high-ranking Jason Weinstein (number two in the Justice Department's Criminal Division) and Kenneth Melson (former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) for “a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgement and management failures.” Journalist Joe Klein points out, however, that the inspector general report did not “relieve Holder of responsibility both for the incredible mismanagement under his watch and the obstruction of the investigations that followed.”


OBAMA AND THE IRAQ WAR
(Return to Table of Contents)

When Barack Obama began his first term as president in January 2009, the U.S. military had overwhelmingly subdued and defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq -- thanks largely to George W. Bush's highly successful "troop surge" of 2007. But Obama's egregious mishandling of America's withdrawal from Iraq turned the U.S. victory into disaster. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer explains:

By 2009, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been not just decimated but humiliated by the American surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaeda.
At the same time, Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki turned the Iraqi army against radical Shiite militias from Basra all the way north to Baghdad.

The result? “A sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.” That’s not Bush congratulating himself. That’s Obama in December 2011 describing the Iraq we were leaving behind. He called it “an extraordinary achievement.”

Which Obama proceeded to throw away. David Petraeus had won the war. Obama’s one task was to conclude a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to solidify the gains. By Obama’s own admission — in the case he’s now making for a status-of-forces agreement with Afghanistan — such agreements are necessary “because after all the sacrifices we’ve made, we want to preserve the gains” achieved by war.

Which is what made his failure to do so in Iraq so disastrous. His excuse was his inability to get immunity for U.S. soldiers. Nonsense. Bush had worked out a compromise in his 2008 SOFA, as we have done with allies everywhere. The real problem was Obama’s reluctance to maintain any significant presence in Iraq.

He offered to leave about 3,000 to 5,000 troops, a ridiculous number. U.S. commanders said they needed nearly 20,000. (We have 28,500 in South Korea and 38,000 in Japan to this day.) Such a minuscule contingent would spend all its time just protecting itself. Iraqis know a nonserious offer when they see one. Why bear the domestic political liability of a continued U.S. presence for a mere token?

Moreover, as historian Max Boot has pointed out, Obama insisted on parliamentary ratification, which the Iraqis explained was not just impossible but unnecessary. So Obama ordered a full withdrawal. And with it disappeared U.S. influence in curbing sectarianism, mediating among factions, and providing both intelligence and tactical advice to Iraqi forces now operating on their own.

The result was predictable. And predicted. Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaeda. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaeda in Iraq — rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of so much of Iraq.


OBAMA AND IRAN
(Return to Table of Contents)

Iran Is Not “a Serious Threat”

  • During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “Think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela. These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” Obama seemed unaware that a nuclear Iran would permanently shift the Middle East’s balance of power, spark an arms race in the region, and pose an existential threat not only to Israel but also to the United States.


Pledge to Negotiate with Iran

  • In a January 2009 interview on the Dubai-based television network Al Arabiya, President Obama pledged to negotiate with Iran regarding that nation’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” and that “the annihilation of the Zionist regime” was imminent.) On the same day as Obama’s interview was aired, an Iranian government spokesman characterized the notion that the Nazis had conducted a Holocaust seven decades earlier as “a big lie.”
  • Obama invited Iran to “unclench its fist” and meet him at the negotiating table for “unconditional talks.” While noting that “Iran has acted in ways not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region,” he suggested that Tehran’s support for terrorists, though “not helpful,” was largely a problem of the past. This was untrue; Iran was still actively supplying weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, which remained firmly committed to the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews.
  • Iran nonetheless continued to pursue its unrestrained pursuit of nuclear weaponry. In response, President Obama imposed a set of economic sanctions that exempted all 20 of Iran's major trading partners from compliance.


OBAMA AND EGYPT
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama and the Fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt

  • In early 2011, as masses of Egyptian protesters forced their longtime president Hosni Mubarak to step down from power, Barack Obama declared that all opposition groups in Egypt should have some representation in the country's next government. He made no mention of the fact that such a development would essentially ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood—Egypt's largest opposition group—would be in a position to steer the new regime toward adopting Sharia Law and increasing its hostility toward the U.S. and Israel.
  • Throughout the weeks of Egyptian rioting, the Obama administration repeatedly shifted its posture, initially expressing confidence in Mubarak's government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid to that regime, and finally pressing Mubarak to loosen his grip on power. “We want to see free, fair and credible elections,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on February 2. “The sooner that can happen, the better.”
  • Obama and his administration took the foregoing positions even though the Muslim Brotherhood had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel; even though the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef, had stated that his organization would never recognize Israel's legitimate right to exist; and even though Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, had told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that "the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel."
  • On February 3, 2011, Israeli lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently had been a cabinet minister, criticized President Obama for having called on Mubarak to allow open elections in Egypt, a prospect that undoubtedly would spell the end of Mubarak's long reign—a reign which, despite all its faults, was reliably pro-West and reasonably friendly toward Israel. Stating that Obama was repeating the mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East had backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power, Ben-Eliezer said: “I don't think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into. If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood [wins] a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament. It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam.”
  • Three decades earlier, President Jimmy Carter had urged another staunch American ally—the Shah of Iran—to loosen his own grip on power, only to see the Shah's autocratic regime replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections had strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and anti-American radicals in Iran. “Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as 'the president who lost Iran,'” analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz. “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who 'lost' Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”
  • Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu similarly warned that “if extremist forces [in Egypt] are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals—as has happened in Iran and elsewhere—the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy.”


Obama Official Calls the Muslim Brotherhood “Largely Secular”

  • During a February 10, 2011 House Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, erroneously: “The term 'Muslim Brotherhood'...is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc.... In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”
  • In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological parent group of both Hamas and al Qaeda. It also seeks to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate governed by strict Sharia Law.


Obama Happily Reports that “We Are Witnessing History Unfold” in Egypt

  • On February 10, 2011—as Mubarak was being driven from office—President Obama said: “We are following today's events in Egypt very closely. We'll have more to say as this plays out. But what is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold. It's a moment of transformation that's taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change.”
  • Later, in an address to students at Northern Michigan University, he praised Egypt's youth movement for its role in fomenting the movement for political change. Noting that the Egyptian demonstrators had “turned out in extraordinary numbers representing all ages and all walks of life,” Obama emphasized that it was “a new generation—your generation” that had been “at the forefront” of the activism. “And so, going forward we want those young people, and we want all Egyptians, to know: America will continue to do everything that we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt,” he said.


The Muslim Brotherhood Gains Political Control of Egypt

  • During the campaign for the Egyptian presidency, the eventual winner, Mohammed Morsi, who was a longtime prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, was candid about his preference for Sharia-based governance. On one occasion, for example, Morsi vowed that under his leadership, Egyptian law would be “the Sharia, then the Sharia, and finally, the Sharia.” And in a May 13, 2012 speech, Morsi passionately recited the pledge of the Muslim Brotherhood, which states: “Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”
  • In June 2012, Morsi won the first free presidential election in Egyptian history. After being sworn into office on June 30, he announced that Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel would eventually have to be “revise[d]”; he blasted Egypt’s military leaders for having recently dissolved the nation's Islamist-dominated parliament; he asserted that his eagerness to develop closer ties with Iran was “part of my agenda” to “create a strategic balance in the region”; he pledged to seek the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, serving a life sentence in a U.S. federal penitentiary for his role in numerous terrorist plots; and he pledged that the new Egyptian constitution would be founded on the Koran and a strict version of Sharia law.
  • In September 2012, Morsi lectured the United States, saying that in order for the U.S. to repair its relations with the Arab world, America would need to show greater respect for Arab values and traditions.
  • When a reporter asked Morsi whether Egypt and the U.S. were still allies, he replied that it would depend on the definition of an ally.”


OBAMA AND LIBYA (AND THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 TERROR ATTACK)
(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama Orders Military Intervention in Libya

  • On March 21, 2011, President Obama, without consulting Congress, authorized the involvement of the U.S. military in imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya, to prevent President Gaddafi's forces from bombing rebels who were challenging his regime. That same month, Obama signed orders allowing the U.S. to offer its covert support (via secret operations) to the rebels trying to topple the Gaddafi from power.
  • In a March 28, 2011 speech justifying his decision to use such measures in Libya, Obama cited Gaddafi’s track-record of brutality and his recent declaration that he would “show ‘no mercy’ to his own people.” Added Obama: “We knew that if we waited ... one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.... [W]hen our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”
  • Obama's decision to intervene militarily in Libya represented a stark departure from the positions he had staked out as an Illinois state senator in 2002, when he criticized President Bush's planned invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002, Obama had said that Saddam's brutality did not constitute sufficient cause to use military force to remove him from power: “What I am opposed to is … the cynical attempt by … weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.... I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history....”
  • Obama's 2011 decision in Libya also contradicted statements he had made in December 2007, when a Boston Globe interviewer had asked for his opinion regarding the U.S. President's constitutional authority to bomb Iran—if the need to do so should arise—without first seeking authorization from Congress. At that time (2007), Obama said: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”
  • On March 22, 2011, author and scholar Robert Spencer offered the following analysis of Obama's actions: “As the U.S. fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday, the objective seems clear. Barack Obama declared that … 'we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.' But he didn’t explain how acting forcibly to remove Muammar Gaddafi would indeed be in America’s interests. And that is a case that is not as easily made as it might appear to be. How could removing Gaddafi, who is undeniably a tyrant and fanatically anti-American, not be in America’s interests? The simple answer is that it is unlikely that he will be succeeded by Thomas Jefferson or John Adams.  The fact that Gaddafi is a reprehensible human being and no friend of the U.S. does not automatically turn his opponents into Thomas Paine.... [Obama] has praised 'the peaceful transition to democracy' that he says is taking place across the Middle East, and yet the countries where uprisings have taken place have no democratic traditions or significant forces calling for the establishment of a secular, Western-style republic. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Eastern Libya, where the anti-Gaddafi forces are based, is a hotbed of anti-Americanism and jihadist sentiment.”


Events at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- Prior to, During, and Before the Deadly 9/11/12 Terrorist Attack

In March 2011, American diplomat Christopher Stevens was stationed in Benghazi as the American liaison to Libya's “opposition” rebels—among whom were many al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists—who were fighting to topple the longstanding regime of President Muammar Qaddafi. Ambassador Stevens' task was to help coordinate covert U.S. assistance to these rebels.

Following Qaddafi's fall from power in the summer of 2011, Ambassador Stevens was tasked with finding and securing the vast caches of powerful armaments which the Libyan dictator had amassed during his long reign. In turn, Stevens facilitated the transfer of these arms to the “opposition” rebels in Syria who were trying to topple yet another Arab dictator—Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. As in Libya, the rebels in Syria were likewise known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups. In addition to facilitating arms transfers, Stevens' duties also included the recruitment of Islamic jihadists from Libya and elsewhere in North Africa who were willing to personally go into combat against the Assad regime in Syria. The U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a headquarters from which all the aforementioned activities could be coordinated with officials and diplomats from such countries as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, Ambassador Stevens and others at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Obama administration for increased security provisions during 2012, but these requests were denied or ignored.

Then, on the night of September 11, 2012, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked by a large group of heavily armed terrorists. Over the ensuing 7 hours, Americans stationed at the diplomatic mission and at the nearby CIA annex issued 3 urgent requests for military back-up, all of which were denied by the Obama administration. By the time the violence was over, 4 Americans were dead: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who fought to drive away the attackers.

The Obama administration immediately and persistently characterized what had occurred in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that happened, coincidentally, to take place on the anniversary of 9/11. Moreover, the administration portrayed the attack as an event that had evolved from what began as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video that disparaged Muslims and their faith. In reality, however, within a few hours following the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that the attack on the mission in Benghazi was a planned terrorist incident, not a spontaneous act carried out in reaction to a video. Indeed, the video had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack.

Given these realities, it is likely that the Obama administration's post-September 11 actions were aimed at drawing public attention away from a number of highly important facts:

  • the U.S. mission in Benghazi had never adopted adequate security measures;
  • the administration had ignored dozens of warning signs about growing Islamic extremism and jihadism in the region over a period of more than 6 months;
  • the administration, for political reasons, had ignored or denied repeated requests for extra security by American diplomats stationed in Benghazi;
  • the administration had failed to beef up security even for the anniversary of 9/11, a date of obvious significance to terrorists;
  • the administration, fully cognizant of what was happening on the ground during the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, nonetheless denied multiple calls for help by Americans who were stationed there;
  • the administration had been lying when, throughout the presidential election season, it relentlessly advanced the notion that "al Qaeda is on the run" and Islamic terrorism was in decline thanks to President Obama's policies; and perhaps most significantly,
  • throughout 2011 and 2012 the administration had been lending its assistance to jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda, supposedly the organization that represented the prime focus of Obama's anti-terrorism efforts; moreover, some of those same jihadists had personally fought against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

For comprehensive details of the events that occurred before, during, and after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, click here.


OBAMA AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
(Return to Table of Contents

In July 2012, author and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted the following items about the Obama Administration's relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood:

  • The State Department has an emissary in Egypt who trains operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
  • The State Department announced [in November 2011] that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
  • Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
  • The State Department has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
  • The State Department has excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
  • The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
  • The State Department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization — so that providing it with material support is a serious federal crime. The State Department has refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
  • On a just-completed trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta currently governing the country, to surrender power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, who is a top Brotherhood official.
  • Huma Abedin, who has close personal and familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, is a close aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
  • In 2011 the Obama administration turned to the Muslim Brotherhood’s leading jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to mediate secret negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Qaradawi's anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are legendary.


Who Is Yusuf al-Qaradawi?

  • Qaradawi has written: “There is no dialogue between us except by the sword and rifle. We pray to Allah to take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people … do not spare a single one of them … count their numbers and kill them down to the very last one.”
  • Qaradawi has declared that suicide bombings in Israel “are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians.” This, he explains, is because Israel is “a society of invaders” whose “nature” is “colonialist, occupational, [and] racist.”
  • In 2004, Qaradawi said: “All of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them … The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately.”
  • Prior to 2005, Qaradawi issued a fatwa (religious edict) permitting the killing of Jewish fetuses, on the logic that when Jews grow up they might join the Israeli military.
  • During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, Qaradawi declared that Muslims were obliged to support the terrorist group Hezbollah in its combat operations against Israel.
  • In a January 2009 speech that aired on Al Jazeera, Qaradawi said: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them—even though they exaggerated this issue—he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.”
  • At a January 2009 “Gaza Victory Rally” in Qatar, Qaradawi declared: “The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom.”
  • In an October 2010 interview Qaradawi said that Muslims have both a right and a duty to try to acquire atomic weapons, in compliance with Koranic verses exhorting Muslims “to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy.”


OBAMA AND JIHAD: APPEASEMENT & DENIAL
(Return to Table of Contents)

Assistant Attorney General Refuses to Say Whether Justice Department Might Ever Criminalize Speech Against any Religion

  • In early August 2012, Obama's Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division) was asked, by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution: “Will you tell us here today that this Administration's Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Perez refused to answer, four separate times.
  • Breitbart.com provided some context for this: “Last October [2011], at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech.... At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for: cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training; limits on the power of terrorism investigators; changes in agent training manuals; [and] a legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word 'Muslim' has become 'racialized' and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to 'take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.' And what was the response from Perez and the DOJ officials? Nothing. That’s right: no objection, no defense of our first amendment right to free speech.”

Obama Bans any Mention of Jihad from Federal Counter-Terrorism Training Materials

  • In 2011, shortly after hard-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman wrote a series of “exposes” that supposedly exposed “Islamophobia” in government counterterror training, Farhana Khera, executive director of an Islamic organization called Muslim Advocates, wrote a letter (on October 19 of that year) to Barack Obama’s then-Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (and later CIA director) John Brennan. The letter was signed by 57 organizations, including many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Among these were the Council on American-Islamic Relations; the Islamic Circle of North America; Islamic Relief USA; the Islamic Society of North America; the Muslim American Society; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

    The letter demanded that Obama officials “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”—that is, materials that they claimed were biased against Islam—and “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training.”

    The Obama Administration immediately complied. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that same day that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything that Islamic supremacists deemed offensive: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

 

RESOURCE

252 Examples of [Obama's] Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, etc.
By DanFromSquirrelHill.wordpress.com
August 15, 2013

Click here to view a sample Profile.

Since Feb 14, 2005 --Hits: 61,630,061 --Visitors: 7,024,052

Copyright 2003-2012 : DiscoverTheNetworks.org