With the issue of race inevitably comes the question of poverty. Obama is a self-described champion of people “afflicted” by poverty, and as a “citizen of the world,” understands the moral call to eradicate global poverty. Why is it, then, that Barack Obama’s half brother, George Obama, still lives in a Kenyan slum?
Despite numerous reports, from Vanity Fair to CNN, that found George in a Kenyan slum and several charity funds (www.helpgeorgeobama.org, George Obama Compassion Fund, etc.) established in George Obama’s name, Barack’s half-brother has not moved out of his slum nor has Barack Obama made any ostensible gestures to George since these reports have surfaced.
George Obama, reportedly living on $1/month (Vanity Fair), was further questioned about his living conditions. He apparently reconsidered, saying
They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don’t want my brother to win…I was brought up well. I live well even now. They exaggerated everything.
That “they” (Vanity Fair, CNN) are considered as anti-Obama media is rather doubtful. But it’s worthwhile to listen to George himself:
Seems that though he seems content with his quality of life (indeed, this is the norm for him), George Obama clearly recognizes that his circumstances could be better and that Barack Obama moves in another stratum. Also interesting is George’s statement that Barack will win the Presidency, not because his brother is the better contender, but because Barack wants to win.
Obama’s answer to improve George Obama’s circumstances is to get the taxpayer to fund it. In 2008, Obama re-introduced the “Global Poverty Act of 2007″ which aimed to aid George Obama by
eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers.
This Global Poverty Act (note the bill hasn’t gone beyond its introduction) perhaps reflects Barack’s general response mechanism. Instead of addressing George’s very real straitened circumstances, Barack Obama has turned them into a global cause, with taxpayers footing the bill. As was clearly seen at the Saddleback Forum, Barack Obama has a habit of talking around the issue with his “nuance” and “intellect.” The question remains whether this presumptive philosopher king can put the talking aside and actually tackle the issues.
Amidst the daily shake-up of the financial sector, Barack Obama compared this as “the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.” Obama railed against Bush (and ergo McCain), outraged at the 6.1% unemployment rate and the 504-point (4.4%) drop in the Dow Jones average.
Here, Obama goes beyond hyperbole to mislead us. Absolutely, the economy has yet to recover from the sub-prime mortgage fallout. However, economic history is proof positive that his gloom & doom assessment of our current economy is a better argument for Obama being “out of touch” with reality.
Does he think that we don’t know unemployment didn’t drop below 6.1% from 1975-1987 …and went as high as 9.7%? How would Barack Obama characterize those years?
Obama’s economic vision for America and his obvious admiration for the European model should give us pause. Does Obama look so kindly on a model which, in practice, results in unemployment rates generally higher than the US and in some cases, a broken welfare state?
Admittedly, Obama is not the only politician or pundit to cry foul at the increase in unemployment. But many critics are the same people who bemoaned the 4.6% unemployment last year and every year under the current administration.
And to be fair, the rate of unemployment that balances with steady inflation has decreased over the past decades. Maintaining control over inflation is a challenge for Bernanke & the Fed. Hopefully, they will act appropriately.
DJIA did drop 4.4% on Monday, and barring a slight recovery the following day, it’s dropped 7.1% so far this week. Compare this with the one day 7.68% drop following 9/11 and 22.61% loss on Black Monday, October 19, 1987. And there are more large one-day drops:
7.74% on 10/24/1997
7.42% on 10/12/1989
7.36% on 01/07/1988
8.74% on 10/23/1987
7.00% on 09/23/1955
22.46% on 06/05/1945
7.27% on 05/20/1940
7.30% on 05/13/1940
Great Depression 1929-1939
12.78% on 12/17/1921
11.81% on 09/19/1918
7.81% on 01/31/1917
30.76% on 07/30/1914
7.42% on 07/29/1914
14.46% on 03/16/1911
13.08% on 10/28/1908
But I’m comparing oranges to clementines. Though should not diminish the serious problems at Fannie, AIG, et. al., the losses listed above are probably more significant than what we’ve experienced today. Obama’s freehanded revision of economic history and the future outlook banks on voters’ “short-term memory” mentality - and his assumption that we’re not smart enough to access public statistics.
The relationship between avowed terrorist-cum-professor Bill Ayers and Barack Obama has been given paltry attention when compared with the recent whirlwind of examination and insinuation surrounding vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Obama most recently dismissed his relationship with Ayers again during the interview with Bill O’Reilly, calling the Ayers relationship another baseless “guilt-by-association” tactic by the right.
Should the Ayers relationship lead us to presume that Obama has terrorist sympathies? Some have suggested as much, but it is highly unlikely that Obama would publicly align himself with members of Weatherman today, much less espouse the actions committed by this 70’s terrorist group in 2008. Perhaps more interesting than the debate of whether Obama have ever been a radical leftist sympathizer is looking at his very current actions in response to Ayers-related investigations.
Malkin, Hewitt, and the like have condemned the response of Obama’s campaign to the appearance of conservative writer Stanley Kurtz on Chicago host Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio program. Rather than accepting Rosenberg’s invitation to appear on the same show with Stanley Kurtz, the Obama campaign sent a mass email and urged supporters to phone into the program in protest of Professor Kurtz’s discussion of the Ayers-Obama relationship (see the Obama Action Wire email on Politico). Obama waged a successful phone campaign, and thousands of callers tied up phone lines to insist that “Rosenberg shut down the Kurtz interview.” Conservative commentators dubbed these “thuggish” attacks as one in a long string of attempts by Obama to silence his critics.
Ironically, either Obama can’t educate his own campaign on his own positions, or Obama has given his campaign free reign in combating conservative critiques – even if it means reneging on his own legislation. Obama introduced the “Election Jamming Prevention Act of 2006,” which would suggest that a tactic as the one employed on Stanley Kurtz & WGN’s Milt Rosenberg would be derided and denied.
The legislation, introduced just 20 months earlier than the attack on Stanley Kurtz, exposed these very same “telephone jamming techniques.” From the “Election Jamming Prevention Act of 2006”:
In recent elections, there have been allegations of political campaigns and committees using telephone jamming techniques to shut down the communication operations of groups supporting their political opponents. (Sec.2.4)
The use of telephones or other communication devices to jam election-related communications should be prohibited in order to protect qualified voters’ right to vote. (Sec.2.7)
Such techniques would include any with the “intent to”
annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications (Sec.3.a.1.i)
prevent or obstruct the broadcast or exchange of election-related information (Sec.3.a.1.ii)
And just to be clear, “the term `election-related information’ means information related to– endorsement, support, promotion of, or opposition to any clearly identified candidate…” (Sec.2.5.A)
That Obama recognizes the effectiveness of phone-jamming techniques is spot-on; he introduced legislation that clearly identified and denounced them. What is not so clear is Obama’s apparent attitude toward his own legislation and, indeed, toward reform in general. Obama uses the very tactic that he actively denounces, with no qualms (note that he didn’t apologize for the “Obama Action Wire” during this episode). This attitude resembles more of Obama’s “Chicago-style” politics than the upright image his campaign is trying to put forward.
To turn the adage on its head, here is a case where the curse has its blessing. What a good thing for Obama that he hasn’t had much to show for his 143 days in the senate: his “Election Jamming Prevention Act of 2006” never got beyond Obama’s reading the bill (twice) to the Senate.
