Here is where you will find all of the Resources and articles used for each show.

---

Episode 16

Socialism

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
(Videos)
Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’ Video  http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8

 

“When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does. I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again – organize our workers and lift up our middle-class. And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens by passing my plan to provide universal coverage and cut the cost of health care by up to $2500 per family”
“The philosophy behind the project is simple – if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can't just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually works.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/obama_and_his_socialist_agenda.html
"I've been working my entire adult life to build an America where economic justice is served," he said. As president, he pledged to "ensure that economic justice is served. That is what this election is about".
http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=429830

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. 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.
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.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/7301/

Guilt by association

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

Form

In notation of First-order logic, this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x∈S:φ(x))→ (∀x∈S:φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

Guilt by association

See also: Collective guilt for legal and ethical aspects

Examples

Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association are:

Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B.

Honor by association

The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organizations that are related to it or otherwise support it. For example:

Examples

 

 

---

Episode 15

Exclusive: Obama buys half-hour of network primetime
By James Hibberd and Paul J. Gough

Barack Obama has purchased a half-hour of primetime television on CBS and NBC, sources confirm.
The Obama campaign is producing a nationwide pitch to voters that will air on at least two broadcast networks. The ad will run Wednesday, Oct. 29, at 8 p.m. -- less than a week before the general election.
The direct purchase of such a large block of national airtime right before an election used to be more commonplace before campaigns began to focus their endgame strategies exclusively on battleground states. Such a move is not without precedent in modern presidential politics, however -- Ross Perot did a similar purchase in 1992.
The special is a smart move for the Obama campaign, said Larry Sabato, a political analyst and director of the Center of Politics at the University of Virginia.
"Obama's theme is not just change but unity, so he's appealing to the whole nation rather than a handful of tossup states," Sabato said. "He wants to win the popular vote by a good margin, which will enable him to govern."
And he's got the cash for it, Sabato said.
"This is another indication, if there needs to be any more, that Barack Obama's got more money than [available] television time to buy," said Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va.
Whether John McCain's campaign will do the same remains to be seen, though there's one big thing moving against it: money. Unlike Obama, who rejected public financing of the presidential campaign, McCain is accepting it. That means the McCain camp is limited in the amount of money that it can spend and raise, and in its TV buying has been limited mostly to ads in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida.
"There will be no second-guessing the Obama campaign on decisions involving resources," Tracey said. "He's not doing this and pulling down [ad] buys in Florida. This is not an either/or decision. They've got 25 days and unlimited amounts of money."
Neither Sabato nor Tracey could say whether the McCain campaign could buy its own time on the networks, even if it wanted to, because of the cost involved. The networks are obligated to offer the similar time and the same price to McCain. After Obama bought about $5 million worth of ads in the Summer Olympics telecasts including national time, McCain bought about $6 million worth in the Olympics. But now, with money and time being tight, it might be more difficult with making hard choices. The McCain camp has already pulled its ads from Michigan, once considered a key battleground state.
"This is where Obama being off public financing really boxes in McCain," Tracey said. "I don't think this is a move that the McCain campaign would be able to match."
Beyond Perot's 30-minute campaign ads in the last month of the 1992 presidential campaign, you have to reach back even further for similar instances. Sabato said that national broadcasts were not uncommon in the 1960s and early 1970s, when TV time wasn't as expensive and the current campaign financing limits weren't in place. It's also a common strategy for candidates for statewide offices to patch together stations on a statewide telecast.
CBS and NBC spokespersons declined comment. Sources say the Obama camp also talked to Fox, but the network might not be able to accommodate the campaign as the time period might conflict with a potential Game 6 of the World Series.
The buy will push CBS comedy "The New Adventures of Old Christine" to 8:30 p.m. and pre-empt "Gary Unmarried." NBC typically airs the hourlong "Knight Rider" in the slot, and will likely throw in a comedy repeat at 8:30 p.m. The buy is being placed by Washington-based ad firm GMMB. Obama's ad will air on the night before the start of November sweep.
This year has seen the first time in many years that presidential campaigns have bought national broadcast TV advertisements. In the past 12 years, much of the billions of dollars in political advertising spent has gone to local TV stations in battleground states. While some money has gone to national cable channels, the thinking has always been that it would be more prudent to target battleground states' voters instead of addressing the entire nation, including states that reliably vote for one party over another.
The Obama campaign earlier this year opted out of the public financing system, which meant that it was free to raise and spend as much as it could. It has, in states like Michigan, outspent the publicly financed McCain campaign by a margin of at least 3-to-1.
It's not unprecedented for a candidate to buy longform broadcast network time, though it hasn't happened in a while. In October 1992, Perot drew audiences of 16.5 million and 10.5 million for 30-minute lectures/campaign ad aimed at voters. But in Perot's second run in 1996, the candidate was rebuffed by the Big Four networks in an attempt to sell airtime. The FCC backed the networks in denying Perot airtime, saying that they acted legally in refusing.
Earlier this year, the Hillary Clinton campaign bought time on the Hallmark Channel, a nearly fully distributed cable channel, for a town-hall meeting before Super Tuesday.
Obama has run many 30-second spots across the country. One ad was considered particularly effective: a two-minute spot in which Obama directly faced the camera and spoke to viewers about their economic hardships.
While broadcast networks in the past have given presidential candidates free time for campaign statements in the final days before the election, those were done during news programs -- outside the expensive primetime hours.
From the start, Obama has been more focused on primetime than any other presidential candidate. Defying conventional wisdom to have political ads clustered around local news, during the primary season the Obama campaign poured 40% of its TV cash in primetime, compared with about 18% for Clinton.
Because the current election contest's convention speeches and debates have set TV ratings records, Obama can expect to draw a significantly bigger audience than Perot. With polls showing the Democratic candidate running with about a 6 point national lead, the Obama campaign might see its telecast as a way of helping close the deal with undecided voters. In fact, for some networks struggling this fall, Obama might draw more viewers than their regular entertainment programming

NUTS!
HOW ACORN GOT ME INTO VOTE SCAM
NY POST

CLEVELAND - Two Ohio voters, including Domino's pizza worker Christopher Barkley , claimed yesterday that they were hounded by the community-activist group ACORN to register to vote several times, even though they made it clear they'd already signed up.
MORE: E-Thief In Chains
MORE: Right: It's Loan-acy
WILL: RX For A Blowout
Barkley estimated he'd registered to vote "10 to 15" times after canvassers for ACORN, whose political wing has endorsed Barack Obama, relentlessly pursued him and others.
Claims such as his have sparked election officials to probe ACORN.
"I kept getting approached by folks who asked me to register," Barkley said. "They'd ask me if I was registered. I'd say yes, and they'd ask me to do it [register] again.
"Some of them were getting paid to collect names. That was their sob story, and I bought it," he said.
Barkley is one of at least three people who have been subpoenaed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections as part of a wider inquiry into possible voter fraud by ACORN. The group seeks to register low-income voters, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic.
"You can tell them you're registered as many times as you want - they do not care," said Lateala Goins, 21, who was subpoenaed.
"They will follow you to the buses, they will follow you home, it does not matter," she told The Post.
She added that she never put down an address on any of the registration forms, just her name.
A third subpoenaed voter, Freddie Johnson, 19, filled out registration cards 72 times over 18 months, officials said.
"It feeds the public perception that there could be [fraud], and that makes the pillars fall down," said local Board of Elections President Jeff Hastings.
Registering under a fake name is illegal. But officials usually catch multiple registrations and toss them.
The major risk of fraud growing out of mass canvassing involves the possibility of ineligible voters filing absentee ballots, and thus avoiding checks at polling places, said Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross.
The subpoenas come as Republicans have ramped up criticism of ACORN. Officials in Nevada raided ACORN's Las Vegas office Tuesday, accusing the group of signing people up multiple times - in some cases under phony names, like those of Dallas Cowboys.
ACORN's Cleveland spokesman, Kris Harsh, said his group collected 100,000 voter-registration cards; only about 50 were questionable, he claimed.
As for workers, "We watch them like a hawk," he said

 

HousingUrbanDevelopment: Five Million Fraudulent Mortgages Held by Illegals

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It's not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

Only in America :)

 

Senator McCain Vows no Politics with Housing Crisis

Senator John McCain was the second candidate to outline his solutions to the housing and credit situation. He restated the history leading up to the current situation and placed the blame for the crisis on:
1. Speculators who moved into the housing market during the bubble and overwhelmed normal market forces with rampant speculation.
2. Lenders who became complacent because of the sustained period of rising home prices and consequently failed to maintain their lending standards.
3. The explosion of complex financial instruments that were not well understood even by sophisticated investors and were largely off-balance sheet and hidden from scrutiny.
4. A crisis of confidence arising out of initial losses in the market which has caused banks to no longer trust each other and credit to dry up.

Calling it "straight talk," Senator McCain said, "I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis."
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.
The Senator said that no assistance should be given to speculators and that any aid should be limited to homeowners and their primary residences, must be temporary, and not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't. "I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits."
His most specific proposals include:
1. Reforms to the system including transparency and accountability. Homeowners should be able to easily understand the terms of their mortgages and in return should provide truthful financial information and be subject to a penalty if they do not.
2. Lenders should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process.
3. The Senator said he opposes proposals to reduce the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and that, as conditions allow, the existing down payment requirement should be raised.
4. Financial institutions should be encouraged to increase capital reserves to serve as a buffer against losses. Methods of encouragement should include removing regulatory, accounting, and tax impediments to raising capital.
These four, the Senator said, would be the principals against which he would examine and evaluate new housing proposals.
He also advocated convening a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders with the goal of extracting a pledge that they will provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped but credit-worthy customers.

 

McCain questions Obama's link to radical Ayers

Oct 9, 5:01 PM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) - John McCain is questioning Barack Obama's ties to a 1960s radical. In his strongest criticism of his presidential rival, McCain told a Wisconsin town-hall crowd: "We need to know the full extent of the relationship."
Obama and Ayers, now a college professor, live in the same Chicago neighborhood and have served together on two nonprofit organization boards. The Illinois senator, who was a child when Ayers' group committed acts of domestic terrorism, has denounced Ayers' radical views and actions. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, first accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
Obama told ABC News that the GOP ticket is highlighting the link to Ayers to "score cheap political points."