Discussion in 'VMBB Fire For Effect' started by rooter, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff*

    Jan 31, 2001
    Marty Robbins old hometown, Glendale Arizona--a su
    You may want to print this so you can read it later. It is long, but VERY worthwhile!

    The Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has been running some very enlightening editorials about Barack Obama. Since Marxism has historically been very unfrendly toward Christianity, we really need to introduce ourselves to the truth about this Presidential candidate.

    The twelve articles from the IBD and one article from the Wall Street Journal which have been posted here provide a disturbing picture as far as I am concerned. Is there any question as to why the liberal TV news generally chooses to withhold such information from the American people? The IBD is especially trying to wake us up with the truth. How can we help get the word out?

    Let's all unite in praying that God will allow us to continue to serve Him in freedom.


    Article #1

    "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy" - James Cone. James Cone's books, which outline his radical "Black Liberation Theology," are the core doctrine of Chicago's Trinity Church and were required reading when Barack Obama formally pledged membership in 1991.
    So are the American people ready to elect a "racist socialist" as President?

    Obama: Stealth Socialist?

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 16, 2008 4:30 PM PT

    Election 2008: After his blowout win in North Carolina, Barack Obama crowed that it's time "to perfect this nation." What does that mean? He won't say - perhaps for good reason.

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295831088444972&kw=black,liberation,theology <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295831088444972&kw=black,liberation,theology>

    As this long primary season drags on, the presumed Democratic nominee for president still won't bring his vision for "change" into focus. He continues to speak in glittering generalities, providing few details.

    The reticence, combined with Obama's radical ties, begs the question: Is he hiding an un-American agenda?

    We know his longtime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, detests America and its capitalist system, viewing it as unjust, oppressive and enslaving to minorities. He and his fellow travelers think they have in Obama the perfect candidate to remake America into a self-loathing dispenser of apologetic largesse to victim groups at home and Marxist regimes abroad.

    Key among these is reverend-turned-professor James Cone, who believes merging Marxism with the Gospel will liberate African-Americans from the supposed economic slavery of "white" capitalism. "Together," he says, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society."

    Cone is the mentor of Obama's mentor, Wright. Wright adopted Cone's "black liberation theology" as his church's core doctrine. According to Cone, the reverend "is really the one who took it from my books and brought it to the church."

    Cone's books are required reading at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has worshiped for the past 20 years. Trinity instituted the theology and its attendant "black value system" a full decade before Obama formally pledged membership in 1991.

    Cone describes black liberation theology as "a faith that does justice," a concept embraced by Obama, who's even argued that "racial justice" cannot be achieved without "economic justice."

    According to the theology, divine justice will come when black Jesus (Obama's church believes Christ was black) grants African-Americans the power to permanently destroy "white greed" and white institutions and replace them with their own "black value system."

    Cone writes that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy" and all its institutions.

    Trinity demands its members pledge allegiance instead to "black institutions" and "black leadership," and patronize black-only businesses. Obama himself has said America's institutions are "broken" and need to be "fixed."

    Obama has recently tried to distance himself from his crackpot pastor, but he hasn't disavowed any part of the Marxist pseudo faith that embodies everything Wright has preached. He refuses to respond to even written questions about Cone and black liberation theology.

    His campaign last year confirmed the doctrine is included in new-member packets provided by the church, and is taught in new-member classes. Both Obama and his wife have attended these classes, so it stands to reason they have been indoctrinated into the radical theology.

    And Obama in his first book defended black liberation theology as sensible, and has even called his tutelage under Wright "the best education I ever had."

    These days Obama has another term for his Afrocentric theology: the "social gospel." "Rev. Wright's sermons spoke directly to the social gospel," he has said, "and I found that very attractive."

    Wright says his sermons are inspired by Cone's books, the contents of which should repulse every patriotic American, white or black. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores," Cone writes.

    That Marxist commitment to revolution doesn't stop at the water's edge. Obama's church in the 1980s rallied to the cause of communist regimes in America's backyard - from Cuba to Grenada to Nicaragua - while downplaying the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

    From his pulpit, Wright whitewashed the brutality of the Sandinista junta and condemned the U.S. for backing the contra freedom fighters.

    "Our congregation stood in solidarity with the peasants in El Salvador and Nicaragua while our government was supporting the contras, who were killing peasants in those two countries," Wright recently thundered.

    The black liberation theology adopted by his church is "very similar," Wright says, to the "liberation theology" espoused by the Marxist revolutionaries whom the contras fought in Nicaragua.

    Wright also condemned as "terrorism" the U.S. invasion of Grenada to oust a budding militant Marxist regime. "We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies," Wright claimed.

    Does Obama intend to carry on that tradition of appeasing socialist despots in our hemisphere, starting with Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez? Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega will no doubt also find support. The Marxist thug has already endorsed Obama's campaign as "revolutionary."

    While Obama has refused to wear a flag pin or stand with respect during the national anthem, he certainly doesn't look or speak the part of an angry anti-American race revolutionist. But appearances may be deceiving. His positions often align with black liberation theology.

    "I don't see anything in (Obama's) books or in the (Philadelphia race) speech that contradicts black liberation theology," Cone recently remarked. Obama has just sanded over the "radical edge to it," he said.

    Does Obama speak in a code recognizable to fellow travelers but not to most voters, who would be frightened off by a radical agenda? "If you're black, it's hard to say what you truly think and not upset white people," Cone said.

    Obama has learned a trick, however, to put them at ease: "smile" and act "well mannered." And don't "seem angry" or make any "sudden moves," as he shared in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

    Also, talk about "hope" without saying what exactly it is you're hoping for. Tellingly, Cone writes a good deal about "hope theology" - which "places the Marxist emphasis on action and change in the Christian context (and) is compatible with black theology's concerns."

    Likewise, Obama has suggested he'd use his faith as "an active, palpable agent in the world," and a source of "hope" in overcoming "economic injustice."

    "I still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change," Obama said in a 2006 speech to the Washington-based socialist group, Call to Renewal.

    Speaking of black revolution, Cone in his memoir said, "Hope is the expectation of that which is not. It is the belief that the impossible is possible, the 'not yet' is coming in history."

    Here's Obama in his 2004 DNC convention speech: "Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope! In the end, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead."

    In his 1969 book, "Black Theology and Black Power," which Trinity uses as a second bible, Cone said: "When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers."

    Here's Obama, in his 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech: "The black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and challenge powers and principalities."

    Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, says Obama has been "very careful" to avoid the path of failed presidential hopefuls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who openly militated for black causes. "He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of black people," Farrakhan said.

    When Obama marched on Washington with Farrakhan last decade, he said blacks turn to "black nationalism whenever we have a sense, as we do now, that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

    He added they have to be smart about how they protest and go about reforming the system. "Cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done," he said. "We've got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do."

    His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.

    One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.

    West, along with Wright and Cone, has argued for reparations for blacks. Obama seemed to sow the grounds for such a case in his Philadelphia speech.

    "So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow," he said. "We still haven't fixed them."

    He added, "That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white."

    Trinity's mission statement calls for "economic parity." Such anti-capitalist views are reflected in Obama's rhetoric and proposals.

    Rated the most liberal member in the Senate, Obama wants to soak the most productive members of society and subsidize those who are not. He wants to hit small businesses and big corporations alike with major tax hikes - singling out for special rebuke oil producers and "Wall Street predators" who have "tricked" blacks out of their homes. At the same time, he plans to expand the welfare state with massive increases in domestic spending.

    "We have more work to do," he told black graduates at Howard University last September. "It's time to seek a new dawn of justice in America. . . . We can right wrongs we see in America."

    Cone says he wants to see a "new system" in America "in which people have the distribution of wealth." He adds, "I don't know how quite to do that institutionally."

    Enter a Harvard-educated lawyer and Southside Chicago-trained community organizer who has a real shot at institutional power. As Obama promised black graduates at Hampton University last June, "We're going to usher in a new America."

    Sounds like a Trojan horse. Will traditional America let it in?


    Article #2

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened," said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s.

    If the American people don't wake up, Norman Thomas will be right. The Investor's Business Daily is doing everything they can to wake us up. Are we going to listen?


    The Sweet Illusion Of Socialism

    By TERRY SATER | Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:30 PM PT

    The underlying issue of the 2008 election makes this a watershed moment in American history, too important to shrink from full and frank debate or allow emotional appeal to cloak party platform DNA.


    In April, when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., was asked if presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama was a Marxist, he replied:

    "I must say, that's a good question . . . I will tell you that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't . . . I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

    It was a good question, but there is a broader one: Will America hold to the principles of capitalism and free enterprise or will it embrace elements of socialism, Marxism and communism? Those are our choices.

    We must have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to debate the choices plainly, by proper definition and without equivocation or censorship. Words matter. The left avoids any use of the terms "socialism" or "Marxism." Conservatives have been intimidated into using childish euphemisms such as "nanny state."

    Webster's dictionary defines "socialized medicine" as "medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained by assessments, philanthropy or taxation." We should call it that, rather than "universal health care."

    In May, two House Democrats called for nationalization of the U.S. oil industry. A June Rasmussen poll reported that 37% of Democrats liked the idea. Webster's defines "communism" in part as "a theory advocating elimination of private property" or "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society."

    In 2004, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She could have easily quoted Karl Marx, who said: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

    The Fairness Doctrine, favored by many Democrats, sounds wonderful, but it ironically disguises the ultimate objective: silencing conservative speech. Why not just call it the Kill Conservative Talk Doctrine?

    We've come far from promises of "a chicken in every pot" to Barack Obama's June 3 declaration that "the chance to get a college education is the birthright of every American." When did it become a birthright?

    In his 1982 book, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism," Michael Novak noted that many who have lived under socialism would find it hard to believe "that other human beings would fall for the same bundle of lies, half-truths and distortions. Sadly, however, illusion is often sweeter to human taste than reality. The last Marxist in the world will probably be an American nun."

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism," said Norman Thomas, a U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940s. "But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

    If it is to be, let's do it with our eyes open, aware of every ponderous step.

    I understand why a person wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth when promised "entitlements" or income redistribution or care whether it is called liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, communism or "change." We at least should know whether it is a gift horse or a Trojan horse, or a combination of the two.

    Sater writes a monthly column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where this article first appeared.


    Article #3

    Do we fully understand the kinds of "change" Barack Obama is proposing for this country? Is this the direction the vast majority of Americans believe we should be heading? What effects would such policies have on our economy? Why is the European Union strongly backing this candidate for President of our great nation?

    The Investor's Business Daily published the attached editorial on Tuesday, July 29, 2008. The editorial section of the IBD can be found at:



    Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code - socialist code.

    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551

    During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

    Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background - and to his politics.

    And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

    It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

    "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

    In the past, such rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

    In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

    Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" - a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

    It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

    Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

    Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" - "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

    Among his proposed "investments":

    * "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

    * "Free" college tuition.

    * "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

    * "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

    * "Free" job training (even for criminals).

    * "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

    * "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

    * More subsidized public housing.

    * A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

    * And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

    His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

    That's just for starters - first-term stuff.

    Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department - from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

    You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

    But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

    Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path - and those who guided it - leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

    The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii - and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

    A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 - a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" - was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

    As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

    "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

    After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

    His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

    The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

    After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" - on a large scale.

    While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply - as well as teach - Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

    (A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" - terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

    Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

    As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

    His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

    "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

    Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

    (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

    In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

    With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

    Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

    (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

    With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

    He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

    Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

    He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

    Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

    Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

    The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

    But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

    Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them - at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

    Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.


    Article #4

    Obama's Global Tax

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480

    We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

    Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

    What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats - from fascism to Nazism to communism - defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.

    Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

    Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

    A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

    These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

    Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

    His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

    It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources.

    It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP - to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.

    We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

    Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.

    During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

    If you're worried abut gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door.

    The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production - oil, natural gas, coal . . . fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

    Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

    Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

    Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test - that passes the global test - where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

    Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

    "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

    Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

    In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.


    Article #5

    "... Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..." Michelle Obama.

    What is "Universal" "Voluntary" "Public Service?" Should I not be free to "choose" to be uninvolved and uninformed if I so desire? As Americans, are we not "free" to make that choice? What if I only want to volunteer for God, for Jesus, for the church as I see fit? Is the "government" going to require that I volunteer in a way IT sees fit? I don't think so...


    Obama Wants You

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: Barack Obama calls it "Universal Voluntary Public Service." We call it a plan for national involuntary servitude. Kennedy asked us what we could do for our country. Obama has ways to make us volunteer.

    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302396723240343

    Sen. Obama's call to public service is quite different from JFK's. JFK knew America was already a nation of givers and volunteers, perhaps the most charitable and altruistic nation on Earth. Entities such as the Peace Corps would give Americans an outlet for their kindness and generosity, an opportunity to share what the freest nation on Earth had given them. Obama will force you to share.

    Obama's Orwellian use of the words "universal" and "voluntary" together is an indicator of an antithesis to capitalist society deeply rooted in his socialist associations, education and training. Indeed, in 1996, when he ran for an Illinois state Senate seat, one of his first endorsements was from the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.

    On the surface, his plan looks just like typical bureaucratic program growth. He wants to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps. He'll create a Clean Energy Corps to plant trees and otherwise save the Earth. It's how Obama plans to fill those slots that's worrisome.

    Announcing his plan July 2 at the University of Colorado, he said: "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges." He will make us an offer we can't refuse.

    Obama says that as president he will "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year." What he doesn't say is that he'll make such voluntarism compulsory by attaching strings to federal education dollars. The schools will make the kids volunteer. It's called plausible deniability.

    In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others.

    "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should," he told the graduates. "But I hope you don't."

    Don't be another Bill Gates and amass a fortune making people more productive and successful in their daily lives and giving your countrymen a standard of living the world will envy. Exchange your cap and gown for sackcloth and ashes. Leave your possessions behind and come and follow Obama.

    "Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition," he opined. Shame on us for being selfish and buying that SUV built by an autoworker trying to fulfill his family's immediate wants and needs.

    "Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation," Obama said. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

    We already have a Salvation Army that is truly a volunteer organization. Collective service and salvation is not a classic definition of voluntarism. What Obama has in mind is to turn America into a socialist version of the old Soviet collectives.

    And if your idea of service is to join the military and keep others alive and free, forget about it. And never mind about ROTC on campus.

    Obama has no place for those who are willing to abandon fame and fortune to lay down their lives for their friends and ours. "At a time of war," Obama says, "we need you to work for peace."

    "We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," Obama's wife, Michelle, told a group of women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the primaries. "Don't go into corporate America. . . . Become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers we need, and we're encouraging people to do just that."

    Don't be the engineers who will figure out better ways to extract shale oil from the porous rock that holds it. Figure out how to extract more money from taxpayers' wallets.

    But the Obamas are doing more than "encouraging" or "asking." In a speech in California, Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."

    But America is not a nation of selfish, self-serving people. Social demographer Arthur Brooks once calculated that Americans volunteered 32% more than Obama's beloved Germans. We also donate seven times more money to charities and causes than the Germans who gathered in Berlin.

    In talking about his national service, Obama, the man who seems to be running for "community organizer in chief," also made this startling statement:

    "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

    This is an idea worthy of Hugo Chavez.

    Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that this civilian national security force alone would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, or between 10% and 50% of all federal tax receipts. And that doesn't include the cost of the brown shirts.

    Adults are not exempt from all this, even adults who've already served in the U.S. military. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," Obama says. Will they be asked, or drafted?

    "The future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson," he concedes. "But it (also) depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans . . ." So drop down and give Sgt. Obama 50 hours.

    Require. Demand. Never allow. Obama's version of "voluntary" service is more appropriate for Havana than middle America. He wants to turn America's students, and even adults, into clones of Elian Gonzalez, compelled to serve the state in ways Obama "will direct."


    Article #6

    Barack Obama has called for a "windfall profits tax" on the evil capitalist oil companies to somehow "force" them to lower gas prices. Does anyone with any fiscal sense at all believe that the oil companies will lower the price of their product because their cost (yes, the tax is a part of their "cost" of doing business) go up? This is just another indication that Obama is so entrenched in his socialist agenda that he is clueless about how the U.S. economy works.

    The Investor's Business Daily certainly wants to help inform the public of Senator Obama's lack of touch with reality. The attached article reflects another in the series, "The Audacity Of Socialism."

    Happy Reading.


    Obamanomics Flunks The Test

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.

    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302484020165482

    In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

    "The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

    Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it - "for purposes of fairness" - by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

    "Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

    But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

    Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

    Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

    Take those megarich he vilifies - the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

    Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

    (It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

    Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

    President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

    He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

    During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

    Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

    Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

    Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

    Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

    Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

    But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

    In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

    So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

    "If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

    Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.


    Article #7

    Obama's Red Roots

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story - that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?


    It's natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama's radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention - because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a "fusion" ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the "New Party."

    The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that's constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn't ask for Obama's association; he asked for the New Party's endorsement.

    Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars. First, the New Party didn't give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:

    "About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to . . . to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates."

    Anyone wanting a New Party endorsement had to "be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP," the Web site said.

    So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt.

    That raises questions about what was in the New Party platform that drew in Obama. Maybe its own statements saying it was formed "to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over the political process."

    Sound familiar? One of the few things Obama reveals in his vague "change" agenda are plans to punish corporations. He rails against "corporate profits" and even worked in a condemnation of them in his first defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So there's little doubt he shares a lot of what the New Party believes.

    The New Party also has advocated a bill of rights for children, a shorter work week, a universal "social" wage and military spending cuts. These will undermine parental rights, lower competitiveness, lard up welfare and make the U.S. less secure. All are echoed in Obama's proposals. They are the hardest battle cries of the left.

    Obama should come clean on why he sought these radicals' support and, better still, disclose just how he intends to pay them back.


    Article #8

    Obama's Gitmo Delegation

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:20 PM PTn

    Election 2008: It's fitting that an ex-Muslim chaplain who once insisted there weren't any terrorists at Gitmo is a delegate for Barack Obama, who's itching to shut down Gitmo.


    James "Yousef" Yee, a former Army Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Gitmo, will represent Washington state for Obama at the Democratic National Convention, where he'll likely have a center-stage speaking role.

    The two are a perfect match. Obama promises to not only close Gitmo, but "reform" the USA Patriot Act. He apparently plans to take those steps in between tea parties with state sponsors of terror.

    Since the Pentagon in 2004 dropped charges against him, Yee has become a poster boy of the anti-war movement. He's cashed in on his ignominy with a book claiming he was the target of "sheer bigotry" and was silenced for exposing "systemic" abuse of prisoners at Gitmo.

    One of his biggest boosters in Washington is Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the Muslim convert who insisted on taking the oath of office on the Quran. Ellison is an Obama superdelegate who's been doing advance work for Obama's planned tea parties in the Middle East.

    Last month, he told an Egyptian weekly that Yee's "case was dropped because there was no case to begin with."

    Nice try. Here are the facts:

    1. Yee was caught returning to the U.S. with maps of Gitmo prison facilities, among other classified materials, and was arrested at a U.S. airport.

    2. He was charged with espionage, mishandling classified documents and lying to investigators.

    3. He served hard time in a South Carolina stockade.

    4. Two of his Muslim cronies at Gitmo were convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents.

    5. Far from being exonerated, the military dropped charges against him to protect national security.

    Guantanamo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who originally accused Yee of spying, explained that there were "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" if the case moved to trial.

    There's no question that Yee, a captain who converted to Islam, was sympathetic to al-Qaida and Taliban captives at Gitmo.

    At times, in fact, he acted more like a defense attorney for the terrorists. He complained that guards subjected them to cruel "abuse" and "psychological torture."

    Waterboarding? Electric shock? No, they committed the sadistic act of mishandling copies of the Quran that Yee had made sure each inmate received.

    He also saw to it that each copy of the Quran came with a surgical mask to cradle the Muslim holy book above ground to keep it safe and clean.

    In addition, Yee convinced his superiors to provide the Muslim prisoners with prayer beads, prayer oils, prayer caps and up to half a dozen books on Islam from the library, which he stocked with some $26,000 worth of Arabic and English titles.

    Thanks to him, the terrorists have been able to brush up on their jihad as they await repatriation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan.

    But not to worry, Yee says, he didn't see any terrorists there. "It's safe to say there weren't any prisoners who could be definitely connected to hard-core terrorism," he recently told BBC Radio.

    What's scary is, the Democrat presidential candidate he's supporting seems to agree with the fairy tale, which is why Obama has also earned the endorsement of the lawyers for Gitmo detainees.

    Maybe they'll get to speak in Denver, too - an entire Gitmo delegation for Obama.


    Article #9

    Castro's President

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election 2008: What is it about Barack Obama that makes our enemies like him? The latest anti-American icon to express eagerness for an Obama presidency is none other than Fidel Castro.


    Presidential candidates usually collect the endorsements of governors, senators and aldermen. But Obama is getting the backing of thug after thug on the international scene. Castro became the latest when, in an article in the Cuban government organ Granma, he gave the Democratic front-runner the closest thing to an endorsement the communist despot has ever bestowed.

    Castro called Obama, "this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency." He also oddly conceded what the effect of his praise would be: "Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor."

    This comes after Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega praised Obama and his political allies as "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change" in America.

    Then there's the seized laptop of Raul Reyes, warlord with Colombia's Marxist-Leninist FARC narcoterrorist group slain in an army raid in March. It contained Reyes' cheery report of some "gringos" he met assuring him that Obama would be the next president.

    Which raises a question: When Obama promised, as he did in a recent speech on Latin American policy, that "we will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC," does that mean more military aid or just "social" aid?

    Data on Reyes' computer also implicated Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as supporting FARC as it tries to overthrow Colombia's government. Can we guess from all this who Chavez himself would like to see in power in Washington?

    And let's not forget the chief political adviser to Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh remarking, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope he will win the election."

    By contrast, Obama rival John McCain was blasted by Castro earlier this year when the Arizona senator reiterated claims made in his memoirs of Cuban Communists torturing U.S. POWs in Hanoi.

    "Let me remind you, Mr. McCain," said Castro, "the commandments of the religion you practice prohibit lying."

    The Castros and Chavezes and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of today's dangerous world are masters of the lie. That's why Sen. Obama's willingness to speak to all of them without precondition so thrills these enemies of freedom.


    Article #10

    Nationalize This!

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Energy Independence: "We can't drill our way out of the problem," goes the Democratic mantra on oil. So what would Democrats do? Some in the party have the worst possible answer: "Nationalize the oil industry."


    In the kind of "oops!" moments politicians have when they say something they wish they hadn't, two House Democrats have recently suggested nationalizing the U.S. oil industry.

    The first was the far-left Maxine Waters of South Central Los Angeles. During a May 22 grilling of oil CEOs, she responded: "Well, I can see that this congresswoman is going to favor nationalizing the oil companies, and making sure the prices go down."

    Then, this week, responding to President Bush's call for more drilling, the just-as-liberal Maurice Hinchey of New York's Borscht Belt chipped in with: "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets into the market."

    This is what it's about: "control." And it's extremely dangerous for our democracy because once government controls the economy, it controls you, too. Then the Constitution, which guarantees your rights as a citizen of our republic, becomes a dead letter.

    What's especially shocking is these two extremists no longer seem out of step with what used to be a centrist Party.

    Don't take our word for it. A Rasmussen Poll released Tuesday showed that 37% of Democrats think nationalizing the oil companies is a good idea. Only 32% disagreed with that.

    Which makes us wonder: Do they even know that socialism - state ownership of the means of production - has been completely discredited by history?

    For 74 years, we struggled against this evil system, and it ultimately collapsed of its own internal contradictions. Yet, apparently, many Democrats are keen to replicate its worst features here.

    What's ironic about this nationalization mania is that government, specifically bad decisions made during decades of control by Democrats, is to blame for our current energy woes.

    Whether it's their failure to build nuclear power plants or oil refineries, their refusal to drill for our plentiful oil, their reliance on market-destroying price controls or their absurd belief that windfall profit taxes will somehow bring us more energy, Democrat-led Congresses have failed us over and over again.

    They've demonized oil companies for the very thing they themselves are responsible for - namely, destroying the link between higher prices and increased output of energy that would naturally occur in a functioning free-market economy.

    This is a global problem, they insist. The fact is, the world's oil crisis is due almost entirely to government intervention in working markets at all levels. As we've noted before, roughly 93% of the world's oil reserves are controlled, directly or indirectly, by governments. It is they who have screwed it up.

    Among the world's 15 largest oil companies, 13 are mega-sized, government-owned behemoths such as Mexico's Pemex, Venezuela's PDVSA and Saudi Arabia's Aramco. Compared with them, Exxon Mobil and Chevron are tiny.

    By refusing to respond to market incentives and through the inevitable corruption of their own governments using nationalized oil companies as piggy banks, these government-owned entities have created a massive energy bottleneck that is showing up now as the economies of China, India and other countries gulp oil at an accelerating rate to fuel their double-digit growth.

    With oil above $130 a barrel and gasoline pushing $5 a gallon, logic dictates that we drill for more. Our oil companies will do that dirty, difficult job for us, but only if they're given access to our bountiful resources and assured they won't be vilified, taxed out of business or taken over by a U.S. House of Socialists.


    Article #11

    Phony 'Emergency'

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Stimulus: Barack Obama's newly unveiled "Emergency Economic Plan" is quite a document, sounding more like the rantings of an extremist fringe candidate than a serious contender for the presidency.


    The six-page package is a doozy, replete with populist ideas that will wreck the economy and leave us poorer. The only real emergency we should worry about is the debacle that would follow its passage.

    It's shocking that a mainstream candidate, with so many supposedly well-regarded economists advising him, would produce such a shoddy, poorly thought-out plan.

    Take his proposal to send every family a check for $1,000. Don't worry, he assures us, we won't have to pay for it. "Windfall profits from Big Oil" will pick up the tab - in this case.

    Sen. Obama seems to be trying to take advantage of reports that Exxon Mobil reported record second-quarter income - indeed, the highest quarterly profit for any corporation ever.

    But the reality is that as Obama and his equally unknowing friends push windfall taxes, Exxon Mobil has already given the U.S. a massive windfall. As economist Mark Perry has noted, Exxon Mobil will pay more taxes this year to the U.S. Treasury than the bottom 50% of all taxpayers - combined.

    In the first half, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. A lot of money, to be sure, until you consider that Exxon Mobil paid $61.7 billion in taxes - also a record.

    People shouldn't fall for such cheap, recycled class-warfare argument. Yet many will. Sadly, it will saddle big energy companies with higher taxes and crimp their exploration and drilling budgets. That means less oil on the market and higher prices.

    We know this because it has been tried before. Jimmy Carter's windfall profits tax led to a 6% drop in domestic oil output and as much as a 15% surge in oil imports, according to the Congressional Research Service. Now, Obama wants to play it again.

    The rest of Obama's plan is just as nonsensical. It would spend $50 billion on various kinds of stimulus, including $25 billion to help erase state government budget deficits. In other words, he'll reward profligate states and punish thrifty ones. This is "stimulus" only if you think stimulus is saving government jobs.

    Another $25 billion would go towards "replenishing" the Highway Trust Fund to rebuild the nation's roads and bridges. The problem with this idea is that we're already paying for it, with a 18.3- cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and even more on diesel.

    Unfortunately, under the last transportation bill, Congress chose to spend more than it had coming in - the result of runaway pork-barrel politics, not need.

    As the Transportation Department's inspector general wrote in a scathing 2007 report, "Many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher-priority, non-earmarked projects."

    The real problem is not that we pay too little in taxes, or that "Big Oil" is enjoying "windfall profits." It's a big-spending, big-taxing Congress that "emergency" plans such as Obama's will only embolden. This lame plan will hurt the economy, not stimulate it.


    Article #12

    Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S.

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Defense Policy: In the middle of a war on two fronts, Barack Obama plans to gut the military. He also wants to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And he wants to keep you in the dark about it.


    The Obamatons of the mainstream media have failed to report one of the most chilling campaign promises thus far uttered by the presumptive Democrat nominee for president.

    He made it before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way.

    In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

    The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting. Here is a transcript:

    "I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.

    "Second, 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. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

    "I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

    "Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."

    You can bet that Obama will not make this sweeping indictment of our security forces again as he tries to move to the center in the general election. But this is what he thinks, and this is what he plans to do.

    His campaign Web site doesn't list a separate category for military or defense under "Issues." But search shows near-identical language there regarding nuclear weapons.

    His plan, needless to say, is frighteningly irresponsible given the world threats.

    While there is fat in the defense budget, defense spending both as a share of GDP and the total federal budget are still at historically low levels, despite the war.

    And while cutting fat out of the defense budget is a worthy goal, Obama would cut beyond fat to bone.

    Caucus for Priorities aims to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from "obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, health care, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger and deficit-reduction."

    On the chopping block: the F-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey, the Virginia-class sub, the DDG-1,000 destroyer and the Army's Future Combat System.

    Cutting allegedly "unproven" missile defense systems is music to Kim Jong Il's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ears, let alone all the PLA generals wishing our destruction.

    Yet Obama wants to kill a program that's yielding success after success, with both sea- and land-based systems. The military just this week intercepted a ballistic missile near Hawaii in a sea-based missile defense test.

    Proposing "deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal" amounts to unilateral disarmament, and it's suicidal given China's and now Russia's aggressive military buildup.

    Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten nuclear madness, and Osama bin Laden dreams of unleashing a nuclear 9/11 on America.

    In contrast, John McCain has vowed: "We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies."

    We've been down this road before. President Clinton pursued a denuclearization program, including his 1995 pledge to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it led to him kicking open our nuclear labs to the Chinese, who proceeded to steal our warhead secrets and strengthen their own arsenal.

    Like the Ben & Jerry's crowd that supports him, Obama believes "real" national security is "humanitarian foreign aid" - essentially using our troops as international meals-on-wheels in Africa.

    We've been down that road before, too, in Somalia and elsewhere. Thanks, but we don't need a third Clinton, or a second Carter, term.


    Article #13

    The Wall Street Journal


    What Is a 'Windfall' Profit?
    August 4, 2008

    The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?

    Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.

    Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.

    Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.

    Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

    If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already become a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

    In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

    If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.

    Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?

    The fun part about this game is anyone can play. Jim Johnson, formerly of Fannie Mae and formerly a political fixer for Mr. Obama, reaped a windfall before Fannie's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Bill Clinton took down as much as $15 million working as a rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Companies. This may be the very definition of "windfall."

    General Electric profits by investing in the alternative energy technology that Mr. Obama says Congress should subsidize even more heavily than it already does. GE's profit margin in 2007 was 10.3%, about the same as profiteering Exxon's. Private-equity shops like Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, which recently hired Al Gore, also invest in alternative energy start-ups, though they keep their margins to themselves. We can safely assume their profits are lofty, much like those of George Soros's investment funds.

    The point isn't that these folks (other than Mr. Clinton) have something to apologize for, or that these firms are somehow more "deserving" of windfall tax extortion than Big Oil. The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

    It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.
  2. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff*

    Jan 31, 2001
    Marty Robbins old hometown, Glendale Arizona--a su
    This post is a continuation of what I rec'd. in this mailing.....I took the liberty to re-title what had come to me----I attempted to be 'fair and balanced' with that title----it could have as well been:
    'YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS'!!!!!!!!!!?????? Chief

    Young Obama's Red Mentor

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: The mainstream media have finally gotten around to revealing Barack Obama's early mentor. But they've downplayed the mystery man's communist background.


    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302827467707515


    As noted in the July 29 curtain-raiser to this series, the seeds of Obama's far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager growing up in Hawaii - and they were far more radical than any biography or media profile has portrayed.

    A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to the age of 18 - a man he refers to only as "Frank" - was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

    In a belated story on the relationship, the Associated Press describes Davis as "left-leaning."

    In fact, Davis was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, according to the 1953 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities of the Territory of Hawaii, which labeled him "a bitter opponent of capitalism." The report was introduced as evidence in the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee hearings probing the "Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States."

    "Davis scholars dismiss the idea that he was anti-American," the AP reports. But one of them, ex-University of Hawaii professor Kathryn Takara, acknowledges in a Ph.D. paper on Davis (not quoted by AP) that he'd been fingered as "a Communist."

    Davis wrote militant poems as a black writer in Chicago, including one in which he hails the Soviet revolution: "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." He also attacked traditional Christianity, titling one inflammatory screed, "Christ is a Dixie N*****."

    As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for bitter nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal shots of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

    "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

    In the eyes of white America, Davis warned Obama: "You may be a well-trained, well-paid n*****, but you're a n***** just the same." He also nurtured anti-white hatred in his young mulatto subject, telling him, "Black people have a reason to hate."

    AP conveniently glossed over these quotes.

    How much influence did Comrade Davis have on Obama? The Democrat White House hopeful refuses to talk about the relationship now. In the book, he only shares that he was "intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge."

    However, Obama followed in Davis' footsteps after college, working as a "community organizer" for the same socialist network in Chicago. He even considered a career in journalism like Davis.

    Obama attended socialist conferences, and took a shine to other black Marxist revolutionists. Not long after Davis died in 1987, Obama came under the spell of another black nationalist-socialist, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, like Davis, wore a dashiki and became a father figure.

    If the relationship with Davis was as blase as the Associated Press makes it sound, why is Obama mum about it? And why did he try to hide Davis' identity in his first memoir, published in 1995?

    "With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures," he wrote in the preface, "the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of privacy." But there was no need to protect Davis' privacy. He had long been dead.

    More likely, the cryptic references to his communist mentor were - and still are - designed to protect Obama's background from the scrutiny it deserves.

    Obama Finds An ACORN

    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Election '08: The man who includes being a community organizer on his short resume has a long association with a far-left group that would organize our communities into socialist gulags.


    IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx>


    In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud.

    A young lawyer, a community organizer himself, sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) and won. The young lawyer was Barack Obama. Acorn later invited Obama to train its staff.

    When Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave Acorn grants to fund its agenda and voter registration activities.

    Acorn has been in the lead in opposing voter ID laws and other efforts to ensure ballot integrity. Acorn has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Ohio and at least 13 other states. Acorn staffers will presumably be out registering voters again this year.

    Obama also opposes voter ID laws. He believes they disenfranchise voters. Last year, Obama put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. It seems von Spakovsky, as an official in the Justice Department, had supported a Georgia photo ID law. Acorn espouses the leftist view that voter ID laws are racist.

    In addition to subverting American democracy to promote a leftist agenda, Acorn's radical agenda amounts to "undisguised authoritarian socialism." wrote Sol Stern in the 2003 City Journal article, "Acorn's Nutty Regime for Cities."

    Acorn opposed welfare reform and opposes securing American borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Acorn was heavily involved a few years back in opposing Rudy Giuliani's efforts to privatize failing New York schools.

    Acorn also has been in the lead supporting the "living wage" and opposing efforts by big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart to bring the bounty and benefits of free-market capitalism to inner cities.

    Wal-Mart has faced resistance to its plans to expand into urban centers - most notably Chicago and Los Angeles - where unions and liberal orthodoxy remain strong. Opponents there charge that such big-box stores exploit workers, depress wages and drive out community businesses.

    Acorn, Obama's former client, supported a big-box living-wage ordinance vetoed by Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley to require stores of at least 90,000 square feet operated by firms with $1 billion or more in annual sales nationwide to pay workers a minimum of $10 an hour plus $3 in benefits.

    Critics such as Acorn, who complain that Wal-Mart employees live paycheck to paycheck, forget that many of Wal-Mart's customers also live paycheck to paycheck and seek quality merchandise at decent prices, which is why 100 million people shop there every week.

    How can they oppose "low" wages for Wal-Mart employees while in effect supporting higher prices for Wal-Mart customers? They can because they believe the socialist orthodoxy that capitalism is bad, government is good and that the solution to poverty is to make everyone equally poor.

    Wal-Mart gives people what they want at a price they can afford. It believes a fair wage is one agreed upon between employee and employer. It is the poster child for roll-up-your-sleeves capitalism. It is efficient, innovative, successful and nonunion - everything government is not - and is opposed for all these reasons.

    Advocates of the so-called living wage see their efforts as putting money directly into workers' pockets. But it merely transfers money from one person's pocket to another person's pocket. This is classic socialist income redistribution - not economic justice, but economic extortion.

    In the real world, companies that pay workers more than the value of the goods and services they produce go out of business. Workers should be paid what their labor is worth, not what their lifestyle requires.

    On his Web site, Obama embraces Acorn's socialist goal, pledging to "raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation and housing."

    That money would come from taxpayers and business owners or, as Marx would say, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
  3. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff*

    Jan 31, 2001
    Marty Robbins old hometown, Glendale Arizona--a su

    Published: June 29, 2008

    Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call
    I have received during this election cycle came this week from
    one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers
    who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised
    in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice
    the total funds raised by any candidate in history â€" and this was
    all from the internet campaign...

    What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess
    we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund-raising
    there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail.

    Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with
    basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns
    and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

    Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet
    campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

    Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution
    intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security
    monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly
    coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate
    and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were
    " programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

    While the security people were not able to track most of the sources
    due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions
    they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming
    in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few
    credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.
    The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were
    from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries.

    One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia .
    Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP
    wit h a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

    It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources
    other than American voters. This was discussed at length within
    the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations
    violated campaign financing laws.

    It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign
    to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source
    (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers)
    to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the
    legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations.
    They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

    This is a shocking revelation.

    We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions
    after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may
    have an even greater problem.

    I guess we should h ave been somewhat suspicious when the numbers
    started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the
    Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

    If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00,
    that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions?
    That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed.

    How did all that happen?

    I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious,
    in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question
    of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and
    perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter
    of these laws but the spirit as well.


    The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself.
  4. Viper246

    Viper246 New Member

    Oct 15, 2008
    North Dakota
    Nothing about Obama surprises me yet the people behind him think he's a god. My daughters are both Obama nuts and the justify everything the man or his camp does. He is involved with ACORN, I believe his schooling was paid for by Muslim money, he has never served a day in his life for his country and he has very little time in office as a Senator. What qualifications does this man have to make him a good president? After he turns the country to Marxism and takes away all the firearms from us "Bitter Gun Owners" he will be wanting a dictatorship.
  5. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff*

    Jan 31, 2001
    Marty Robbins old hometown, Glendale Arizona--a su
    Welcome on board, VIPER....I noted you being from North Dakota...The last time I was up in that 'neck of the woods' was in the summer of 1967---right before going to Vietnam the first 'go-round'....I was with a Navy Disaster Recovery Training Team teaching about things we would hope never to happen...They were called BROKEN ARROW exercises and it was for the missile silo forces. Though we were not the 'button pushers', we were more like the janitor crews...actually we taught in classrooms and never got into the silo facilities themselves...some of us had seen the 'configurations' of the weapons going thru applicable training at the SANDIA CORP. in New Mexico. For the BROKEN ARROW training we taught dress out, site monitoring including aerial, site security, decontamination, and public relations like 'pre-canned news releases'....We traveled in a big navy truck and trailer with our training gear...Perhaps the reason I recall N. Dakota was this terrible hailstorm we run into one very hot afternoon....The truck and trailer was dimpled to the point of being 'alarming'....that was what the appraisal folks claimed when they come out from our California base to survey the equipment damage----and wring their hands and inquire why didn't we seek shelter during the hailstorm...FOOLS!!!! there were a lot of wide open spaces there on the praraie---damn little shelter!!!! Chief
  6. 1shot1k

    1shot1k Former Guest

    Nov 9, 2008
    Fort Worth, Texas
    New Member, hi to all. By this date election over. Am only Republican in a family of democratz, and I do hope Obamam will do OK with all watching over him. I do wonder about early Muslim ties, etc , and actual scripture from
    Revelations concerning the Anti-Christ that sure seem to describe him too often in verses or someone just like him, but I do hope he doea good for us, as I still believe we dont do enough (some of us ) to make sure the real law
    makers (house/senate) remember who put them there.

    Just wanted to add, when I saw this post, that Obamamma man came to mind to me several times this year , mainly because .... due to the time frame involved concerning him ( etc- 2009 till 2012 ) ....I dont think many
    other people are aware that The Mayan Indian's ( best calender/planet cycle
    ) people in history , their last calender ran till 2012, dec 21st ... which is
    according to them, last day of earth. I didnt put much stock in that until,
    recently from NASA , large object possibly on course with us , will know if
    it hits here or misses us in 2010 -2012 , and now of course, we have
    a muslim President. Just was thinking about all that.

    Also, for a bit of humor .....

    Latest today from GOVT sources : New Micro Chip Implant for Terrorist ..

    Is reported that when new Micro Chip device is implanted within foreheads of suspected terrorists, they can then speak with God. More , We repeat
    More TEST and IPLANTEES are needed to study results....

    Actual Photo of Implant Devices is ttached....

    Attached Files:

  7. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff*

    Jan 31, 2001
    Marty Robbins old hometown, Glendale Arizona--a su
    Welcome on board ONE SHOT....some pretty profound thoughts and reflections you have and I just imagine, endorsed by more than you know...We lost our Boss recently and as of this date, don't know what is going to happen to this site and all the troops who visit hereon. Tell us about yourself...any association with snipers? If you get a chance drop down and read my stories about THE SPOOK.....If you are a Veteran, thank you for your service---if a non-vet, thank you for your support. Chief

  8. 1shot1k

    1shot1k Former Guest

    Nov 9, 2008
    Fort Worth, Texas
    BY your leave "rooter". Will update info soon, am trying to find
    a working digcam left around here to take pics of last of my
    peices to put on trade forum with my ad. Want another .45 bad.

    Hope loss of boss was "professionally, not physical...
    WILL get back soon.

    Notice only man standing is from wheelchair?

    If you can read this thank a Teacher
    If you read it in English thank a LRRP
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
VMBB Fire For Effect BIG TALKER OBAMA IN BERLIN... Jun 26, 2013
VMBB Fire For Effect OBAMA CARE...THE RECKONING. Mar 23, 2012
VMBB Fire For Effect OBAMA WANTS TO WHAT??????? Sep 9, 2011
VMBB Fire For Effect Obama to honor Jane Fonda Jul 16, 2010