The sound heard across America on November 4th was not Sarah Palin shattering the glass ceiling, it was the Republican party falling on its face.  The severity of the injury is easily seen:

• A Democrat with Obama's credentials beat a Republican with McCain's credentials in a landslide.  Obama held a 6% lead in the popular vote and had double the Electoral College votes.
  
• In the last two elections, Republicans have gone from a majority to a near-toothless minority in the Senate.
• In the House, Republicans have lost 50 or more seats in the last two elections.
• Among state governors, 29 are now Democrats.
• Obama disparaged rural Pennsylvanians and Murtha piggybacked his own insults onto this, yet Murtha easily won reelection.
• Foul-mouthed comedian Al Franken forced a run-off with an incumbent Republican Senator.
  

Although the Republican Party will survive, there is no doubt that these are the darkest of times.  Multiple reasons (excuses?) for this election disaster have been posited:

• The unpopularity of the President and Congress
• The unpopularity of the war in Iraq
  
• A poorly run campaign
• The lack of appeal of the candidates
• The economic crisis
• Mainstream media bias
  

These issues contributed to the loss, no doubt.  However, it would be delusional to think that these situational factors are the sole cause for the defeat of an organization that is otherwise sound.  The Republican Party has lost its effectiveness as the spokesperson for the conservative perspective in American politics.  To regain its stature, the party should address three areas of concern: accountability, platform, and campaign.

Accountability
In his concession speech, Senator McCain personally accepted responsibility for his defeat.  More than a noble gesture, this should serve as a role model for Republican leadership.  This is difficult for politicians to grasp, whose survival instincts cause them to reflexively avoid responsibility.  As evidence, voters have come to believe that the way to tell if a politician is lying is that his lips are moving.

Because they tout values, Republicans are especially prone to criticism for hypocrisy when they stray.  Republicans cannot afford to be the "do as I say, not as I do" party.  Harm has been done to the conservative message by the likes of Ted Stevens, Scooter Libby, and George Ryan (criminal convictions); Newt Gingrich (affair); Vito Fosella (drinking and sex scandal); and David Vitter, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig (sex scandals).  Such shenanigans should be left to Democrats like William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, John "Abscam" Murtha, Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton, Gary "Rock Creek Park" Condit, Chris "Sweetheart Deal" Dodd, Barney "Prostitution Ring" Frank, Charlie "Tax Man" Rangel, Tim "Family Values" Mahoney, Robert "Homeless" Wexler, Gerry "Chicken Hawk" Studds, Hazel "Globetrotter" O'Leary, Elliott "Emperors Club VIP" Spitzer, Marion "Cokehead" Barry, James "Gay Gov" McGreevey, Kwame "Text Message" Kilpatrick, and the DNC (1996 foreign contributions) (more here).  To gain the trust of the people, you have to be trustworthy.

A second consideration is establishing a solid base from which Democratic misconduct can be highlighted.  In this past election, Republicans hit Obama with Bill Ayers and he shot back with the Keating Five.  This counter punch transforms a potentially powerful right vs. wrong issue into a weaker spitting contest of which transgression is worse.  A prerequisite to being self-righteous is to be righteous.

To regain political momentum, Republicans should set the standard for ethics, transparency, and conduct that exceed what is loosely described as "ethical standards" for Congress.  John McCain tried to initiate bipartisan ethics reform, to no avail.  So, let's forget the "bipartisan" and make it Republican ethics reform.  A Republican who breaks the rules or betrays the public trust while in office should be evicted from the party.  Note how this compares with Democrats, who turned on Joe Lieberman for being disloyal but allow William Jefferson, Charlie Rangel, and Chris Dodd to remain Democrats.  Strict ethics may cause Republicans to lose a few more seats, but at this point it doesn't matter much and in the long run the party will be better for it.

Platform
I would not presume to tell the Republican Party how to write a platform, but I will mention a few issues that seem relevant.  First, the conservative voice remains very relevant in America's political dialog.  However, Dick Morris and others have pointed out that the Republican Party only loosely represents conservatives.  There are good reasons for the party to consider revitalizing its conservative heritage.  The enthusiastic acceptance of Sarah Palin versus the tepid response to John McCain appears largely due to her conservative versus his moderate politics.  The surprising support gained by libertarian Ron Paul and before him, Ross Perot, stems from their endorsement of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights.

A second issue is the Republican Party's affiliation with the religious right.  Australian Prime Minister Howard told Muslims that his country was based on secular law and if they wanted to live by Sharia Law they would have to move elsewhere.  Similarly, American Christians should understand that to have the religious freedom they cherish, government cannot base its laws on any one set of religious tenets.  When considering our laws, the appropriate reference is the Constitution, not the Bible.  What, then, is it reasonable for the Republican Party to promise the religious right?  Perhaps that it will uphold religious freedom, fight against assaults on religion including Christianity, and advocate conservative values.  Regarding the controversial Roe v. Wade decision, it is very doubtful that it will ever be overturned now that it has 35 years of legal precedence.  Conservative Christians should accept this reality and not ask the Republican Party to joust with this particular windmill any more.  However, it is reasonable for the Republican Party to work to restrict abortions in the same way the Democrats work to restrict Second Amendment rights.

Based on this admittedly cursory foundation, the following areas are offered for consideration as the Republican Party deliberates its future direction.

• Ethics.  Fairly or not, Republicans have been hammered in recent years over honesty and accountability in government.  As noted in the previous section, regaining America's trust will require Republicans to live to the highest standards, not to the lowest common denominator.
  
• Fiscal Responsibility.  The federal debt is now a staggering $10 trillion.  Servicing this debt consumes substantial resources and weighs on the economy like an anchor, threatening future prosperity.  Reducing spending, balancing the budget, and paying off the debt need to be more than campaign rhetoric.
  
• Small Government.  Democrats generally advocate bigger government and, unfortunately, so has the Republican Party in recent years.  We literally cannot afford this trend to continue.  Fortunately, polls suggest the majority of Americans favor smaller government, at least theoretically. 
  
• Fairness.  The Democrats think of "fairness" as equal outcomes, from the Marxist tradition.  While this makes for seductive rhetoric, such policies have never been shown to work.  The American dream is based on opportunity, not welfare.  Fairness requires two things: 1) economic mobility so that people truly have the chance to better their lives and 2) equal opportunity.  Republicans need to communicate this concept of fairness clearly and endorse policies that remove barriers to economic mobility and equal opportunity.
  
• Compassion.  A mark of a great society is that it cares for those that are not able to make their own way.  This should always be a priority for America.  However, government handouts should not be a substitute for personal responsibility, industry, or initiative.
  
• Free Markets.  America's greatness has been largely due to free market capitalism.  For America to continue to grow, prosper, and provide an unparalleled quality of life for its citizens in this era of global economies it is necessary that we do everything possible to maintain a positive business climate and not handicap the ability of our businesses and corporations to compete.  Promoting opportunity and innovation creates jobs and expands economic mobility.  High taxes on businesses and investments to fund social programs may seem compassionate in the short run but they slow economic growth and regressively increase costs to lower income individuals.  History has shown free market capitalism to be the best way to increase prosperity and reduce poverty.  Hands down.
  
• Sensible Regulation.  The opposite of regulation isn't corruption, it's freedom.  Regulations are useful to keep things running adequately if not smoothly, to promote confidence in our systems, and to provide protections to citizens.  Republicans should emphasize balancing regulations with freedoms, in contrast to the nanny state levels of regulation Democrats appear to favor.  The down side of freedom is that people have the right to make bad decisions and they must take responsibility for their decisions, both good and bad.  This can be a hard sell, particularly in light of recent financial bailouts that give the impression that government should provide a reset button for life.  However, unlike a video game, government's reset button doesn't come for free.
  
• Religious Rights.  There is a cliche that the Constitution protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion (other than separation of church and state).  It seems government has taken a fairly passive role regarding freedom of religion.  The Republican Party may want to consider advocating a more active stance in assuring people can practice their religion without interference from others.  One example is gay protestors who entered a San Francisco Catholic church and disrupted services.  They may have been exercising their freedom of speech but they were interfering with the congregation's right to worship.
  
• Defense.  Democrats seem to believe social programs and entitlements are the federal government's top priority.  Money can be taken away from the defense budget whenever it is convenient to fund these programs.  Yet national defense is a constitutional mandate of the federal government.  Republicans have always had these priorities straight and should continue to do so.
  
• States' Rights.  As federal oversight has increased, it has necessarily usurped the rights of state and local governments.  A plan to reduce the size of federal government could easily incorporate measures to increase states' rights.  State and local government has the advantage of dealing more directly with regional issues and can be more responsive to citizens.  I suggest that the first consideration for any measure that comes before Congress be, "Is this something that could be handled at the state level?"
  

Campaign
In his presidential victory speech, Obama said his was the greatest political campaign in history.  This is arguably true.  There is little doubt that the Republican campaign was outmaneuvered at every turn.  This included fundraising, media relations, grassroots efforts such as Camp Obama, incorporation of ACORN, opposition research, and use of modern technology such as the Internet and cell phones.  At this point, Obama is refining and expanding his strategies along with consolidating his power base.  It is likely that his methods will infuse all future Democratic campaigns.

To avoid being outplayed again, Republican operatives must study this election, identify what they did wrong and, perhaps more important, what Obama's campaign did to win.  This returns us to the issue of accountability.  There can be no room in future campaigns for individuals who do not perform well or go public with criticism or bickering, nor can there be any sacred cows when it comes to strategy and tactics.  Sentiment cannot deter revision of strategy and cronyism cannot hamper changes in personnel.

Obama's campaign drew heavily from the no holds barred, do anything to win community organizer strategies pioneered by Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals).  In fact, Alinsky's son complimented Obama on how effectively he implemented these methods.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton also studied Alinsky.  Here are a few examples of specific strategies Obama used.

• Ridicule.  Responding to ridicule can be very difficult.  Instead of simply disagreeing with or criticizing McCain, Obama frequently ridiculed or mocked him.  A good example is when he said he was going to be accused of being socialistic because, "I shared my toys in kindergarten."
  
• Get opponent to follow the rules.  Obama frequently accused McCain of being divisive, not discussing the issues, or running a negative campaign.  The intent is to make it appear McCain isn't following the rules.  Meanwhile, Obama was perfectly content to be divisive, not discuss the issues, or run his own negative campaign.  The idea is to try to get your opponent to follow rules.  If you then break the rules, you gain an advantage.
  
• Appeal to the middle class.  Alinsky was all about acquiring power which he saw in terms of people and money.  He felt the poor have no power, so if you want to acquire power you have to mobilize the middle class.  Obama did so constantly and after one of the presidential debates he commented that McCain hadn't mentioned the middle class once during the debate.  Clearly, he had his target audience clearly in his sights.
  
• Appeal to self-interest.  Alinsky wanted community organizers who were motivated by self-interest and he had no patience with do-gooders.  He understand how powerful self-interest could be.  Obama consistently appealed to self-interest of voters in the areas of tax cuts, health care, and money for college.  He would often translate concepts or theories into specific benefits for people, usually the middle class.
  
• Use guilt and shame.  Alinsky advocated using guilt and shame to manipulate society's "haves" into giving to society's "have nots".  Thus, Obama said it was "neighborly" to pay taxes (Biden called it "patriotic") and that not paying higher taxes was "selfish".  This doesn't seem to have been as effective as other Alinsky techniques.
  
• Use large events.  Large events are useful because they are memorable and intimidating.  Some members of the media seemed puzzled about Obama's speech in Berlin and moving his acceptance speech to Invesco Field.  They are straight out of Alinsky writings.
  
• Have plans.  If you don't have a plan, you give your opponent an opening for criticism.  Obama's campaign had lots of plans and promises, and he would often criticize McCain for being out of ideas.  Now that he has won the election, Republican strategists should carefully track his performance on his numerous campaign promises.  Hopefully, they can be his undoing.
  

These methods can be difficult to counter and it seems that Republican operatives should be prepared to face them in the future.

One thing's for sure.  If Democrats pursue their stated agenda and Republicans shore up their conservative position, you won't need a scorecard to tell them apart in the next election

Senator Obama has come full circle, returning to his rhetoric of unity, hope, and change.  Why does this resonant with Americans?  Let's examine them one at a time.

Unity.  Americans represent a spectrum of native countries, heritage, and culture.  We don't always agree on issues or policies, but above all, we are Americans.  This has been true since the colonies came together to fight for their independence.  Our Civil War severely tested this resolve, but unity won.  We don't need a President that would have us march lockstep to the beat of his particular drum.  We Americans are proud of our right to be individuals but when it comes to love of country, we close ranks.

Hope.  Since colonists first came to our shores looking for a better life, America has been a place of hope.  Those that settled American tackled the western frontier and built the greatest country the world has ever known in less than 200 years.  Our history has been marked by optimism, confidence, and determination.  America is a place of success, not failure.  We have always solved our problems and we will solve the challenges facing us today.  Does anyone really believe the present financial downturn will defeat us?  A president who tells an optimistic, confident country to "hope" is doing nothing more than preaching to the choir.

Change.  In the early years of our country, we had the good fortune to be led by a group of intelligent and dedicated individuals.  The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence were  revolutionary documents that, together, formed a solid foundation on which our country was built.  From these beginnings we have grown and matured much as a child grows into an adult.  Woven into the fabric of our nation is the desire to get it right.  We saw slavery was wrong and over a hundred years ago we abolished it.  Several years later we realized that it was wrong to prevent women from voting and we fixed that.  From an international perspective, after fighting in World War I we tried to bring nations together in peace and  cooperation.  We stopped the spread of fascism in World War II and the spread of communism in the 1980's.  Recently, radical terrorists and people like President Ahmadinejad have called America evil, yet we have come to the aid and defense of more Muslims than any other nation on earth.  We are not a mean country.  We are not an evil country.  We do make mistakes and we try to fix them.  We are also not fully grown up.  Throughout our country at the local, state, and federal level government reviews and refines our laws, to continue our maturation as a nation.

We do not need a president that talks the talk of unity, hope, and change.  America is already walking that walk.  Yet Americans know that our country has problems.  Approval ratings of Congress have never been so low.  Similarly, our current administration started out with great promise only to prove disappointing.  Government has become bloated and ineffective, unrelenting partisanship resembles grade school children bickering on the playground, and our national debt has grown to an unimaginable $10 trillion.  Because we love our country, it makes us angry to see leaders in Washington and on Wall Street promoting corruption and putting self interest ahead of serving the people.  The recent economic meltdown is a case in point; it is not the disease, it is a symptom.  Our governance has become mired in human frailty; greed, narcissism, hunger for power, mutual back scratching, insider networks, partisan fault finding, taking credit for successes even when it is not due, and the fine art of always finding someone else to blame when things go bad.  This needs to be fixed, those responsible need to be held accountable, and those who would continue these shabby practices need to be escorted out of power.

What we need is a president who has demonstrated a willingness to fight for our country, to confront corruption, and to do what's right even when it is not to his advantage politically.  In this regard, John McCain is almost unique in American politics today.  I say "almost" because there is another who shares these qualities; his running mate Sarah Palin. 

We do not need Obama the Messiah.  We need John the Reformer.

Recent days have seen renewed interest in exactly who Barack Obama is.  Ascertaining his true identity and beliefs is difficult for several reasons.  First, his public record is short and thin.  Second, his public speeches tend to focus on broad, essentially empty terms such as "hope" and "change" but provide little of substance.  Third, he tends to address specific issues in highly nuanced terms designed to allow escape routes should his position be confronted.  Fourth, he changes positions on issues without explanation and even goes so far as to say that his inconsistent statements do not indicate any change in his thinking.  Finally, he has not been forthcoming and has outright lied about some aspects of his history.  So, since we can't get straight talk from Barack Obama during this election season, where do we go to find out about him?  His writings and, because birds of a feather flock together, whom he has sought out as associates and allies.

Phyllis Schlafly did an excellent review of his autobiography, Dreams From My Father here at Townhall.com.  She points out that nowhere in this book does Obama express any positive feelings towards the United States.  He sees U.S. history as one of oppression.  He sought out an angry, black, racist identity and considers integration as a process of giving up one's identity and accepting that of the dominant culture.

It is important to understand Obama's early personal history in considering this transformation.  He was the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas.  He was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  Hawaii is the epitome of multiculturalism and whites are a minority.  When I lived there in the late 1960's, race was never really brought up.  In my school class, I think there was one other white student and I had no white teachers.  Racial injustice had occurred in Hawaii, victimizing the native Hawaiians in the same way Native Americans were mistreated on the mainland.  The group that received the most prejudice was the Filipinos.  Clearly, Hawaii is not the deep South or the inner cities of the North.  Thus, Obama does not have a traditional African-American heritage and, in fact, some African-Americans have accused him of not being "black enough".  He does not have a personal or family history of the kind of oppression he came to identify with.  His angry, racist attitudes were not evolve out of his circumstances, they were manufactured.

Another recent article by Thomas Sowell points out that Obama does not have the credentials to support his mantra of change and hope.  At the start of his political career, he chose not to associate himself with reform candidates but rather to seek allies within the Chicago Daley political machine.  The relationships with these individuals, along with earlier influences, will be examined further in the following.

Frank Marshall Davis
Obama's autobiography mentions an influential relationship during his time in Hawaii with a man named Frank.  With a little digging, investigators have identified this individual as Frank Davis, a prominent black poet and writer.  Mr. Davis was a longtime member of the communist party and a vocal supporter of communist party leaders targeted by McCarthyism.  His political writings focused on themes of colonialism, exploitation, racism, and classism.

Obama's grandfather introduced him to Davis at age 10 and their relationship continued for nine years.  Obama would seek advise from Davis on matters such as race, exposing him to Davis' world view.  The Telegraph reported that Davis wrote a graphic pornographic, supposedly autobiographical book under the pseudonym Bob Greene, detailing sexual perversion including pedophilia.

Of interest here is that Obama was exposed to a fairly radical world view at a young age.  Also, rather than proudly asserting that he knew this famous man during his childhood, Obama chose to cloak the relationship in anonymity.

Malcolm X
In his autobiography, Obama states that he favored the writings of Malcolm X.  The only work left by this extremely influential civil rights leader was his autobiography.  This indicates his family had been subjected to considerable racial violence.  As a young adult, he was involved in crime and in 1946 he was sentenced to eight to ten years for burglary-related charges.  While in prison he was exposed to Nation of Islam teachings.  He subsequently became one of its most prominent leaders but broke away from this group in later years. 

Malcolm X described white people as devils that were created by a black scientist and that blacks would resume their dominant role some day.  He saw white people as "the common enemy".  He described Christianity as the white man's religion and Islam as the only religion for blacks.  In his early years he said blacks should have their own country but later supported black nationalism.  He rejected nonviolence as a means to racial equality.  He was a harsh critic of American government and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  His rhetoric took a softer tone shortly before his assassination.

In conclusion, Obama's preferred reading was the works of a well-known militant and radical leader.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright
Obama describes Wright as his spiritual mentor who brought him to Christianity and the title of his second book, The Audacity of Hope, was inspired by one of his sermons.  He was a member of Wright's church for 20 years and donated over $27000 to the church in 2007.  Wright performed Obama's marriage ceremony and baptized his children.  Obama appointed Wright to his presidential campaign's African-American Religious Leadership Committee in 2007 but this role ended in March 2008.

Wright is a proponent of black liberation theology and his inflammatory rhetoric has been widely publicized since first being reported by ABC News on 3/13/08.  He has made repeated statements that are hateful, racist, and clinically paranoid.  For example, he characterized the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks as "America's chickens are coming home to roost"; that the U.S. supported state terrorism; that the CIA helped imprison Nelson Mandela; that the U.S. lied about Pearl Harbor; and the government invented the HIV virus to perform genocide against minorities.  He has called the U.S. "a "Eurocentric wasteland of lily-white lies and outright distortions."

When Wright's statements were first publicized, Obama said he had never heard them.  Five days later, in his 3/18/08 Philadelphia speech he acknowledged that he had heard Wright make objectionable statements.  The New York Times  reported that Wright, who was initially scheduled to perform the invocation at Obama's presidential bid announcement ceremony on 2/10/05 was subsequently uninvited because it was felt his views might be too Afrocentric.  Wright said Obama explained, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."  Obama prayed privately with Wright before the event.

Several points can be made.  Despite his initial denials about being aware of Wright's statements in March 2008, it is clear that Obama and his campaign knew of Wright's "kind of rough" rhetoric  in 2005 and took steps to avoid having Obama publicly associated with Wright.  The Philadelphia speech appears to be an effort to rationalize his way out of the Wright dilemma.  I suggest that anyone who has had a close friendship would find it unbelievable that Obama could have a 20 year relationship with Wright and not know his basic beliefs and attitudes.  It seems even less credible that Obama, influenced by Davis and the writings of Malcolm X, found himself in a congregation such as Wright's by accident.

Rashid Khalidi
Rashid Khalidi was born in New York City to a Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother.  He was educated at Yale and Oxford.  He is well-known as an authority on the Middle East and is currently a professor at Columbia University.  He was an advisor to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1991 Madrid conference and has been a PLO supporter despite their designation as a terrorist organization.  His extensive writings include viewing of Israel in terms of colonialism and as occupiers.  He justifies PLO terrorism as resistance to this occupation.  He has described Israel as an apartheid and racist state.  In 2005 he was dismissed from the New York City teacher training program for his "past statements".  This move was criticized by Columbia University president Bollinger as a violation of First Amendment rights; this is the same Mr. Bollinger that invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia.

At a 5/22/08 event with Florida Jewish voters, Obama was asked about his relationship with Khalidi.  He acknowledged knowing Khalidi because "I taught at the University of Chicago", that they had conversations, and that their children went to school together.  In fact, a Los Angeles Times article states Obama was a frequent dinner guest at Khalidi's house and he spoke fondly of their conversations.  In 2000, Khalidi held a political fundraiser for him.  Obama paid tribute to Khalidi at his 2003 going away party when he left Chicago for Columbia University.  Michelle Obama attended the wedding reception for Khalidi's daughter in early 2008 along with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (see next section).  Khalidi has said Obama's public support for Israel is necessary to win elections in the U.S.

Once again, we see Obama allying himself with an individual who has radical views and, when confronted, he minimizes this relationship.

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn
This married couple lives near Obama in Chicago.  Ayers obtained a Ph.D. in Education from Columbia University in 1987 and Dohrn obtained a law degree in 1967.

Ayers joined the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and rose to prominence.  In 1969 he splintered off from the SDS and cofounded the Weather Underground (WU).  Dohrn was also a leader of this radical, domestic terrorist group.  In 1969, Dohrn along with other WU members met with North Vietnamese and Cuban officials in Cuba.  The group organized a 1969 Chicago riot and in 1970 they published a Declaration of a State of War against the U.S.  In 1970, three members of the group were killed when a nail bomb they were building exploded.  The group exploded multiple bombs in the early 1970's, including New York City police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and a judge's house.  The couple turned themselves in to authorities in 1980 but escaped punishment because evidence against them was not admissible.  Dohrn subsequently served seven months for refusing to cooperate with the investigation of the 1981 Brinks robbery by members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army.  A guard and two policemen were killed in this crime.

In 1994, Dohrn said she continued to be a radical.  In 1995 Ayers characterized himself as a radical, Leftist, communist.  In 2006, Mr. Ayers stated "education is the motor-force of revolution" at a meeting in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez at his side.  He went on to criticize "capitalist education" and to praise Chavez.  Ayers has a school reform agenda that focuses on teaching social justice, that capitalism is unfair and oppressive and that the U.S. is a racist nation.

When asked about his association with Ayers, Obama initially said he was a guy that lived in his neighborhood and their children went to school together.  In fact, there is a generational gap between their children, so they could not have gone to school together.  Also, the relationship is much closer than Obama stated.  Obama kicked off his political career at an event hosted at Ayers' home in 1995; he would have us believe he received what was essentially a political endorsement from someone he hardly knew.  Obama authored a very positive review of a book Ayers wrote in 1997 on the failed juvenile criminal justice system.  They subsequently held a public panel on this topic organized by Michelle Obama in 1997.  They served together on another public panel in 2001.  Obama and Ayers served on the Woods Fund board from 1999 through 2002, during which time grants were approved for Reverend Wright's church and a project associated with Rashid Khalidi.  Perhaps most important is their work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  Ayers applied for this grant to promote political awareness and to radicalize students in Chicago public schools.  He received $49.2M and Obama headed the grant from 1995 to 1999, during which time he obtained an additional $60M.  Obama dispensed money from the grant according to its goals, not to schools but rather to external organizations such as ACORN and the Small Schools Workshop founded by Ayers.

Again, Obama associates with former terrorists who continue to hold radical views.  When confronted about the relationship he minimizes it and outright lies.

Michelle Obama
Barack Obama has said family should be off limits.  I agree except with regard to statements that are clearly political in nature or that are made as part of the campaign.

Ms. Obama's 1985 senior thesis at Princeton discusses integration as assimilation into a white culture in which she would always remaining on the periphery.  She said she would use her resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.

In discussing the need to work together, she said "our souls are broken in this nation".  On 2/18/08 she uttered the famous, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country."  In March 2008 she was interviewed for The New Yorker magazine.  She said "we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents".  She said the U.S. is a divided nation guided by fear and it is "just downright mean".  She felt things have gotten progressively worse throughout her lifetime. 

In her DNC speech, she spoke of "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be"; perhaps coincidentally, these terms were used in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

On 2/11/07 she was asked on 60 Minutes about fears of her husband becoming president.  The point was made that Colin Powell's wife opposed his running because she was worried about "some crazy person with a gun."  Ms. Obama said, "as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

Ms. Obama's thesis suggests she feels disenfranchised and marginalized.  It is reasonable to assume that, with her husband running for president, Ms. Obama would be on her best behavior in recent years.  Despite this, she has made a number of very negative statements about the U.S. and at least one that has racial overtones.

There is also an interesting overlap in the histories of Ms. Obama and Bernardine Dohrn.  Ms. Obama and Ms. Dohrn both worked at Sidley & Austin, a prestigious law firm, in 1987 and 1988.  Ms. Dohrn had been hired there as a favor to Tom Ayers, her father-in-law.

Conclusions
Here we have a brief description of the major figures in the Obama: Who are You? story.  The supporting cast includes other controversial people like Fr. Michael Pfleger, Michael Klonsky, and Marilyn Katz, but I won't delve into them here.  I think I've presented enough information to begin to draw some conclusions.

Taken in moderation, concerns about the plight of the less fortunate, fighting the injustices of prejudice, and distrust of big business and free markets are core planks of the Democratic party platform.  However, these people do not represent moderate beliefs; Obama has surrounded himself with people who take these ideas to a radical extreme.  These include communists; people who endorse and even practice terrorism; people who are anti American; people who are fundamentally opposed to capitalism because they consider it unfair; people who would use education for political indoctrination and revolution; and people who are obsessed with issues of discrimination and oppression.

Obama's various relationships and influences are curious artifacts when taken individually.  Taken together, they form a pattern.  Obama presents himself as a moderate reformer but the evidence clearly speaks otherwise.  He has sought out relationships with extremists.  When these relationships are uncovered he has denied and minimized the associations, at times even lying.  This suggests he is aware that the inconsistency between these relationships and the image he is trying to sell to the public is a problem for him.  My concern is this.  As a community organizer Obama was well aware of principles developed by Saul Alinsky and that he is basing his presidential campaign on these principles.  I fear that only if and when he is elected president will we be shown the true Barack Obama.

For some reason, general wisdom (or at least mainstream media opinion) is that economic issues favors the Democrats.  But why?  Certainly, Democrats dole out benefits to one group at the expense of another and promote class warfare.  But are they really better for the economy?

Democrats often characterize Republicans as being mean spirited haters of the poor and middle class.  However, consider that over 50% of the current Federal budget goes to entitlements and social programs.  It is difficult to see how anyone can say that the poor and middle class are being forgotten.  Keep in mind that nothing is free; every dollar the government gives away comes from somebody's pocket.  At what point have we reached a reasonable balance between helping our citizens and allowing people to keep the money they earn rather than give it up in taxes?  Apparently, Democrats feel that no matter how much we help our citizens, it is never enough despite the fact that there are serious concerns about our ability to continue funding existing programs into the future.  They pile on escalating demands for more and more programs and entitlements, always casting Republicans as Scrooge. 

Democrats also talk about the poor and middle class as though we live in a serfdom and the only way a person can have a better lot in life is to be born to royalty.  They talk about the unfairness of how income is distributed when, in fact, income is not distributed but rather it is earned.  They discuss the "haves" and "have nots" in our society when, in fact, compared with others, America is actually a country of "haves" and "have lots" per Dr. Thomas Sowell.  They talk of fairness and giving help to the less fortunate when, in fact, they want to give handouts and achieve a socialist goal of equal outcomes.  President Reagan said that if you reward poverty and incompetence, you will get more of both; the success of welfare reform bears this out.

The reality is that fairness is already built into our economic system.  Longitudinal data reveal that very few people remain at the same economic status throughout their lifetimes.  For example, of people in the labor force, only 5% of those in the bottom 20% financially in 1975 were still there in 1991 while 29% of those initially in the bottom 20% had moved into the top 20%.  People just entering the job market take entry-level positions and move to higher paying jobs as they gain experience and skills.  Wealthy people also move down with considerable frequency for a variety of reasons.  The American dream is that, with hard work, you can achieve your goals and the unfettered economic mobility in our system provides this.  The Democrat dream is that things will be given to you and, with hard work, your earnings will be taken away from you.

Obama brags that he will give 95% of taxpayers a refund.  At present, about 33% of tax filers pay no income tax at all.  Proposals by both McCain and Obama will increase this to about 43%.  This suggests both candidates are sensitive to the financial difficulties faced by lower income households.  It seems a reasonable balance of fiscal policy with providing benefits to citizens for 43% of our people to be able to enjoy the benefits of living in America income-tax free.  Not good enough for Obama, though.  He goes further, making good on his promise through income redistribution, taking money from higher income groups and giving it to lower earners.  It is difficult to see this as anything less than socialism or, more cynically, vote buying.  This is not a hand up, it is a hand out.  Another example is that Democrats pander to the poor by favoring increases in the minimum wage, knowing full well that such increases hurt low wage earners by shrinking the number of entry level positions.

Obama wants to increase taxes for the rich, saying they should pay these because it is "neighborly" or "patriotic" (according to his running mate).  There is an inherent irony in stating that the rich should pay greater and greater amounts for being successful in America while the poor shouldn't pay, or even be subsidized, for enjoying the benefits for living in our country. 

Mixed in with Obama's "tax the rich" proposals are plans for high taxes on the engines of our economy; corporations, businesses, and investments.  There is considerable danger that such taxes will further slow an economy that is teetering on the brink of recession.  It has been said that we cannot tax our way out of this economic mess, we must grow ourselves out of it.  Obama's tax plans along with his intent to restrict free trade are reminiscent of similar policies by President Hoover in the early 1930's that likely prolonged the Great Depression.

There are three additional issues with Obama's tax plans.  First, Obama speaks in outraged terms about how greedy corporations are making obscene profits, as though they hoard this money in some dragon's lair.  In fact, corporations don't keep profits, they distribute them to shareholders.  Anyone who has a 401k, retirement fund, or owns any other type of investment is likely to benefit.  Enormous numbers of Americans use such vehicles to invest in their future and Obama's plan is to pay for his social plans now by taking away from our future.  Second, Obama wants to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.  This was tried in the Carter administration with the predictable result that domestic oil production decreased.  This will accomplish nothing except deepening our trade deficit.  Finally, Obama speaks as though he is only going to tax the rich although it is certain that his economic advisors know the basic economic principle that all taxes are regressive.  For example, if you increase corporate taxes on WalMart, who pays?  Liberals are fond of casting WalMart as a big, evil corporation, but it has not been endowed with the privilege of printing money.  Its business plan is built on thin profits and high volume, so thecost of new taxes can't easily be absorbed.  No, you can bet increased corporate taxes will find their way to the price of goods on their shelves and these prices are paid by - you guessed it! 

The recent government rescue of the credit markets will cost upwards of one trillion dollars.  Add this to the record deficit our government was already running and doubts about our ability to continue to pay for mandatory entitlement programs.  Then, consider the additional one trillion dollars in spending called for in Obama's budget plan with the certitude that once a program or entitlement is enacted it will remain in the budget forever.  Federal debt is a drag on the economy and it is difficult to see how our country can possible grow and prosper under this spending burden.

Another issue is the nature of spending plans.  Obama is a strong proponent of social engineering, with many spending plans that direct our financial resources to goals considered beneficial by Democrats.  Some of this involves direct spending, such as for infrastructure.  The ability of such direct spending to stimulate the economy is questionable; for example, it has not been successful in Japan.  Other Obama proposals involve government partnerships with the private sector.  These endeavors can distort markets.  For example, a side effect of the recent ethanol subsidies was increased food prices.  Also, markets created by government spending may not become self-sustaining and can collapse when subsidies are removed.

In conclusion, it is only through massive denial of reality and delusional beliefs about basic economic principles that one could conclude Obama and the Democrats are the answer to our current financial woes.  It is a pure fabrication that Republicans don't care about lower and middle class families; over half of our Federal budget goes to entitlements and social programs and the number of Americans who will owe no income tax is the same for Republicans and Democrats.  It is absolutely false that taxing "the rich" will not affect Americans in general.  Increasing taxes on our economic engines and addng a trillion dollars in Federal spending is tantamount to economic suicide.