Barack Obama Part Four

Obama Administration Sharply Rebukes Israeli Housing Project

On October 1, 2014, the Obama Administration -- in what ABC News described as "a striking public rebuke" -- condemned Israel's plan to build a new, 2,500-unit housing project in east Jerusalem. "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. "It also would call into question Israel's ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians." Morever, the Administration condemned what it called the "provocative" occupation in recent years, by several hundred Israeli settlers, of residential buildings in Silwan, an Arab neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Earnest warned that this occupation would "escalate tensions at a moment when those tensions have already been high."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was "baffled" by the Obama Administration's rebuke. "It's against the American values," stated Netanyahu. "And it doesn't bode well for peace. The idea that we'd have this ethnic purification as a condition for peace, I think it's anti-peace."

Obama Administration Expresses Condolences over Death of Hamas Terrorist; Refuses to Call Him a Terrorist

On October 24, 2014, a Palestinian teenager was shot and killed by an IDF soldier while attempting to throw a Molotov cocktail at Israeli civilians. The youth was subsequently buried wearing a green Hamas headband, and the Obama administration quickly released a statement (that same day) expressing its "deepest condolences to the family." Three days later, at an October 27, 2014 State Department briefing, Associated Press reporter Matt Lee asked spokesperson Jen Psaki the following: “There are reports … that [the Palestinian teenager] was throwing Molotov cocktails at cars on a highway, and I’m wondering, if that is the case, would you still have been so speedy in putting out a statement and offering your condolences to the family? The argument that is being made by some in Israel is that this kid was essentially a terrorist, and you don’t agree with that, I assume.”

Psaki replied: “Correct, we don’t. I don't have any more details on the circumstances, though.”

Lee then asked whether the fact that the teenager was buried wearing a Hamas headband was “of concern at all.”

Psaki responded, “I just don’t have any more on this particular case,” and then abruptly turned to take a question from another reporter.

Top Obama Official Calls Netanyahu "Chickenshit"

On October 28, 2014, The Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that a senior Obama administration official had recently spoken to him in the most disparaging manner about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ("Bibi") Netanyahu, saying: “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.... [H]e won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

"I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly," added Goldberg. "This official agreed that Netanyahu is a 'chickenshit' on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a 'coward' on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat." "Over the years," Goldberg wrote as well, "Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and 'Aspergery.' (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.)"

Moreover, Goldberg spelled out the dire implications of such rhetoric vis a vis U.S.-Israeli relations: "This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively 'unbreakable' bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it's ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program."

Israeli officials reacted angrily to the remarks of the anonymous Obama senior official. Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said that “severe curse words against the Israeli prime minister are harmful to millions of Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide.” Former Israeli United Nations Ambassador Dan Gillerman described such name calling as “shameful,” “abusive,” and “counter-productive.”

Netanyahu, for his part, said: "I have been on the battlefield many times. I have risked my life for the country and I am not prepared to make concessions that will endanger our state.... It must be understood that our supreme interests, with security and the unity of Jerusalem first and foremost, are not among the top concerns of those anonymous elements that are attacking us and me personally, because the attack on me comes only because I am defending the State of Israel.... If I did not defend the State of Israel, if I did not vigorously uphold our national and security interests, they would not attack me. And despite all the attacks against me, I will continue to defend our state."

When a reporter asked State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki whether Obama administration officials were trying to learn who had made the comments quoted in Goldberg's article, she said simply, “No,” and then abruptly turned toward another questioner. But the aforementioned reporter immediately followed up by asking, "Why not?" To this, Psaki replied: “There are anonymous sources in all of your stories every single day. If we spent all of our time focused on that effort, we wouldn’t be working on diplomacy.” (Click here for video of the exchange.) Rejecting also the notion that the U.S. should apologize to Israel for the smear against Netanyahu, Psaki added: “If this issue comes up, [Secretary of State John Kerry] would make clear this isn’t the position of the administration.”

State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Should Have Done More to Limit Palestinian Civilian Casualties

At a November 8, 2014 press conference, an Associated Press reporter asked State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki to comment on the International Criminal Court's decision that Israel could not be charged with having committed war crimes during its seven-week war against Hamas during the preceding summer. In her reply, Psaki issued the following remarks: "As we made clear throughout the summer’s conflict, we supported Israel’s right to self-defense and strongly condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks that deliberately targeted civilians, and the use of tunnels, of course, of attacks into Israel. However, we also expressed deep concern and heartbreak for the civilian death toll in Gaza and made clear ... that we believed that Israel could have done more to prevent civilian casualties, and it was important that they held their selves to a high standard. So that remains our view and position about this summer’s events.... [I]t remains the broad view of the entire Administration that they [the Israelis] could have done more and they should have taken more -- all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties."

After Palestinian Terror Attack, Obama Draws a Moral Equivalence Between the Two Sides

After a November 18, 2014 attack where two Palestinian terrorists -- wielding meat cleavers, an ax, and a gun -- murdered five people (including three U.S.-born rabbis) who were praying in a Jerusalem synagogue, President Obama said: "Too many Israelis have died; too many Palestinians have died. At this difficult time I think it's important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence. We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace."

Reports That the Obama Administration Is Considering Sanctions Against Israel

In early December 2014, the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz reported that the Obama administration, which was vigorously pushing Congress to refrain from imposing any new sanctions against Iran, had recently held secret internal meetings to discuss the possibility of imposing sanctions on Israel as punishment for the continuing construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions from reporters regarding the matter. “I’m obviously not going to comment one way or another on reported internal deliberations,” she said. “We’ve made clear our position on settlement activity publicly and that hasn’t changed.” When pressed further to comment, Harf said she would not “address hypotheticals.”

Obama Administration Leaks to the Press About Israel

* 2010: The Obama administration leaked information of a covert deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, whereby the Saudis would allow Israel to use their airspace in order to wage an attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

* March 22, 2012: the Obama administration leaked to the New York Times the results of a classified war game which predicted that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could lead to a wider regional war and result in hundreds of American deaths.

* March 29, 2012: An ABC News story said: "Two reports today about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks. The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft. The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is 'unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…'"

The Foreign Policy report quoted an intelligence officer saying, “We’re watching what Iran does closely…But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”

Institute for National Security Studies analyst Yoel Guzansky explained that the deal with Azerbaijan “totally changes the whole picture,” making it far easier for Israel to strike Iran quickly and forcefully, rather than having to fly more than 1,000 miles over Iraqi airspace.

Guzansky interpreted the motives behind the Obama leaks as follows: “It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking. I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.”

In a May 29, 2012 Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper column titled “Obama Betraying Israel?”, longtime defense commentator Ron Ben-Yishai condemned the leaks, writing: “In recent weeks the administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. The campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”

* April 8, 2012: The New Yorker reported that according to information leaked by Obama administration officials, the Israeli intelligence ageny Mossad was helping to fund and train the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK).

Breitbart.com analyzed the motives behind the leak as follows: "So what would be the purpose of the leak this time? The same as the last time: it’s supposed to tip off the Iranians to efforts against them, and it’s supposed to dissuade the Israelis from doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program.... This leak is just the latest in a pattern of leaks from the Obama administration ... The Obama administration is desperate to prevent any sort of aggressive Israeli action on Iran before the election. That’s because Obama knows it would put him between a rock and a hard place – his leftist base hates Israel, and yet the American people love Israel overall."

* Early May 2013: Two unnamed Obama administration officials leaked classified information to the media indicating that Israel was behind a May 3rd airstrike against a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles at the airport in Damascus, Syria. Israeli security analysts suggested that the leak could not only endanger any Israeli agents still on the ground in Syria, but would also increase the likelihood that Syrian President Bashar Assad would retaliate against Israel. As Global Research in International Affairs Center director Barry Rubin explained, “It requires the Syrians to react officially rather than deny that it happened or that it was an accident. It forces Syria and Hezbollah and Iran to react officially and say they want to seek revenge, which makes things more dangerous for Israel. Can you imagine if things were reversed and somebody did that to the U.S.?”

* Early November 2013: An Obama administration official leaked to CNN that Israeli warplanes had attacked a Syrian base (in the port of Latakia). The planes were targeting “missiles and related equipment” -- specifically, Russian-made SA-8 Gecko Dgreen mobile missiles -- to prevent their delivery to Hezbollah.

* January 2015: the Obama administration -- which opposed the notion of imposing any new sanctions against the Iranian regime -- leaked information indicating that a Mossad official had recently stated that such sanctions would surely cause negotiations with the Islamic Republic to collapse entirely. Secretary of State John Kerry elaborated: “One of the top intelligence personnel within the Israeli intelligence field – I won't name names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that visited there over the weekend, what the effect of sanctions would be, and this person answered, that would be like throwing a grenade into the process.”

Approximately 12 hours later, however, that unnamed official stepped forth to publicly identify himself. It was the head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, whose office released the following statement: “On January 19, 2015, the head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, met with a delegation of U.S. senators at their request and with the approval of the prime minister. Contrary to what has been reported, the head of the Mossad did not say that he opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran.... Regarding the reported reference to 'throwing a grenade,' the head of the Mossad did not use this expression regarding the imposition of sanctions, which he believes to be the sticks necessary for reaching a good deal with Iran. He used this expression as a metaphor to describe the possibility of creating a temporary crisis in the negotiations, at the end of which talks would resume under improved conditions.”

Obama Is Enraged by Benjamin Netanyahu's Acceptance of John Boehner's Invitation to Address Congress

On January 21, 2015, House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was strongly oposed to the emerging U.S. agreement with Iran regarding the latter's nuclear program, to speak on February 11 to a joint session of Congress about the security threat posed by Iran. (The date of the speech was subsequently changed to March 3.) Boehner reportedly did not consult with President Obama before extending the invitation.

In response to Boehner's action, an outraged Obama administration accused the House Speaker of having violated “protocol” by extending the invitation on his own initiative instead of asking the executive branch to extend an invitation. A senior administration official also derided Netanyahu, saying: “We thought we’ve seen everything. But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don’t do.... He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half [actually two years] left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

When it was subsequently announced that Obama would not be meeting personally with Netanyahu during the March 3 visit, the president offered this explanation: “We don’t meet with any world leader two weeks before their election. I think that’s inappropriate.” "As a matter of long-standing practice and principle,” added White House officials, “we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections,” so as to “avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country.”

The Obama administration also instructed members of the Congressional Black Caucus not to attend Netanyahu's speech, and to speak out against it publicly as well. Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to skip the speech.

In early February 2015, it was learned that the White House's tale of having been blindsided by Boehner and Netanyahu was a lie. This was made evident by a correction added to a New York Times article that stated: "Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before."

On February 8, 2015, it was learned that the Obama administration's claim that its decision not to meet with Netanyahu in Washington was based on its desire to avoid "inappropriate[ly]" influencing the upcoming Israeli election, was also a lie. This was evidenced by the fact that during the weekend of February 7-8, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry went to Munich, Germany to meet with Israeli Labor leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu's opponent in the election.

The One Voice Movement Sends 5 Former Obama Campaign Operatives to Israel, to Work on Defeating Prime Minister Netanyahu's Re-election Bid

In early 2015, the One Voice Movement (OVM), which held Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in extreme contempt, bankrolled the Israeli group V-2015 and its effort to defeat Netanyahu’s bid for reelection. Toward that end, OVM flew a team of five former campaign operatives of Barack Obama—including Jeremy Bird, who served as a national field director for Obama's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns—to help run V-2015's activities out of a Tel Aviv office building. As part of this anti-Netanyahu effort, OVM paid for hundreds of people to go door-to-door and try to influence voters throughout Israel. Notably, OVM had received funding not only from private donors and charitable foundations, but also from the U.S. State Department.

As the Daily Caller observed at the time: “There’s lots of evidence that Obama wants Netanyahu defeated, in part, because Obama thinks Netanyahu is making it difficult for him to strike a peace deal between Israel and the Jew-hating Islamist dictators and theocrats that surround Israel. … Obama’s aides were sharply critical when Netanyahu recently accepted an invite to speak to a joint House and Senate session just prior to the March election.”

Obama Says Islamic Attack on Kosher Deli Was "Random" Violence

In a February 2015 interview with Vox, President Obama said the following about the four Jews who had been killed the previous month by Islamist gunmen who attacked a kosher deli in France:

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.... [I]t is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our country safe.”

Obama said this even though one of the killers had called a French television station and stated emphatically that the deli was targeted because it was a Jewish establishment.

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest, in a press conference, stuck to the notion that the murders in the kosher deli were random acts:

Question: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli though, they were in a kosher deli?

Earnest: John, these individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point.

Question: Not by name, but by religion, were they not?

Earnest: Well, John, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki advanced a similar narrative:

Psaki: Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically there were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically but the individuals who were impacted. (Psaki was wrong; all four of the victims were Jewish.)

Question: Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish or an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?

Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here.

Question: Yeah, but if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, you don’t – he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?

Psaki: Well again, Matt, I think it’s relevant that obviously the individuals in there who were shopping and working at the store….

Question: Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher deli? I mean I might but you know… an attacker going into a store that is clearly identified as being one of, as identified with one specific faith, I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say this was a targeted attack.

Psaki: I just don’t have more for you, Matt. It’s an issue for the French government to address.

Later that afternoon, in response to public criticism of the administration's "random violence" theme, both Psaki and Earnest completely reversed their position and pretended that they had been characterizing the attacks as targeted, anti-Semitic actions all along. Psaki tweeted: "We have always been clear that the attack on the kosher grocery store was an anti-semitic attack that took the lives of innocent people." Forty-one minutes after that, Earnest tweeted: "Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn't intend to suggest otherwise."

Netanyahu Cites "Profound Disagreement" with the U.S. on Iran Deal

On February 10, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.” He added: “…[W]e do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival. …It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.”

Netanyahu Accuses U.S. of Abandoning Its Pledge to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

On February 25, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed criticism in Washington of his plans to speak to a joint session of Congress on March 3, saying: "I respect the White House and the President of the United States but on such a fateful matter, that can determine whether or not we survive, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger for Israel." Noting that the U.S. and its fellow P5+1 negotiating partners had pledged to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Netanyahu said that "from the agreement coming together it appears they have given up on this commitment."

OBAMA THE DIVIDER

(Return to Table of Contents)

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

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

DIVIDING AMERICANS BY CLASS

(Return to Table of Contents)

Obama the Chicago Community Organizer

From the mid- to late 1980s, Barack Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation of what community organizers do: “For 'community organizers' ... racial resentments are a stock in trade.... What [they] organiz[e] are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.”

The godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, put it this way: “[The community organizer] must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.... [His function is] to agitate to the point of conflict.... Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”

Obama's Ties to Saul Alinsky's Tactics for Fomenting Class Resentments

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Emphasizes Inter-Group Conflict

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

Obama Scapegoats the “Top 5 Percent”

In a December 28, 1995 interview published in the Hyde Park Citizen newspaper, Obama explained his views on income inequality in the United States: “In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.”

In that same interview, Obama said that his perspective on the “top 5%” had been shaped by his experiences abroad: “It's about power. My travels made me sensitive to the plight of those without power and the issues of class and inequalities as it relates to wealth and power. Anytime you have been overseas in these so-called third world countries, one thing you see is the vast disparity of wealth of those who are part of power structure and those outside of it.”

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

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

Obama Views the Poor As a Potential “Voting Bloc”

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

“To the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their [the working poor's] lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”

The “one good thing that comes out of [the welfare-reform bill of 1996] is that it essentially desegregates the welfare population,” merging urban blacks with “the working poor, which are the other people.”

Such a coalition becomes “one batch of folks ... that is increasingly a majority population” whose policy needs would grow to encompass health care, job training, education, and a system where government would “provide effective child care.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Rich” Should Pay More Taxes

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

Calling for a Capital Gains Tax Hike

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

Higher Taxes for the Wealthy

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

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

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

“Fat-Cat Bankers”

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

“At Some Point, You've Made Enough Money”

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

Obama Opposes Tax Cuts for Top Earners

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