"The Road We've Traveled": Just Another Complete Coincidence?

President Obama's re-election committee recently released a 17-minute video called, "The Road We've Traveled."



The title is a bit curious, isn't it?  It sounds completely innocuous but why "The Road We've Traveled"?  The title doesn't convey success nor does it imply a sense that the President has overcome obstacles.

Stuart Chase

Out of sheer coincidence, supposed coiner of the term New Deal, Stuart Chase, wrote a book in 1942 called "The Road We Are Traveling."  Or is it a coincidence? Read on an you be the judge.  Is this a path toward greater freedom for mankind or is it the road to a new serfdom?

The Road We Are Traveling was sponsored by The Twentieth Century Fund, since renamed The Century Foundation.  According to their web site, they support "progressive ideas that advance security, opportunity, and equality."  They claim to be non-partisan, but also freely admit, "we are not neutral."  One of the trustees is John Podesta who is founder of the Center for American Progress, who was also President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, and was also co-chairman of the Obama Administration transition team.  But I'm sure that's all a coincidence, too.

In the book, Chase outlines how the world in 1942 is changing from a system based on "free enterprise" into a new, unknown system that he calls "X".  Here is an excerpt from pages 94 to 97.  One might go so far as to call this a "fundamental transformation."

(click a page to enlarge the original)

In war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued. Planning has often been identified with socialism. Yet orthodox socialists themselves are far from pleased with the collectivism practiced in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and they look with grave suspicion on the New Deal. Something has appeared which nobody anticipated, nobody wanted and nobody really understands. Mr. James Burnham has called it the "managerial revolution," in the first intelligent attempt to understand it which I have seen. Many more studies will be needed before the mystery is cleared up. We have something called "X," which is displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world. If we do not know yet what to call it, we can at least describe its major characteristics. They include, in most countries: 


Free Enterprise into "X"

• A strong, centralized government.
• An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees. (see "The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change" from The Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta)
• The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government. (see  Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)

• The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works. (see American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
• The underwriting of social security by the government--old-age pensions, mother's pensions, unemployment insurance and the like.
• The underwriting of food, housing and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing the essentials. Other nations are far along the road. (in 1942, the United States had passed Social Security, but had not passed the "Great Society" welfare and Medicare legislation of the Johnson Administration) 
• The use of the deficit spending techniques to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity. (all of President Obama's budgets have had nearly trillion-dollar annual deficits.  The United States Senate has passed no budget in over 1,000 days)
• The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies. (see "FDR Ends Gold Standard in 1933" and "Nixon Ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System")
• The control or foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
• The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency.
• The control or energy sources--hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.
• The control of transportation--railway, highway, airway, waterway.
• The control of agricultural production. (see "Family-farm advocates say new child farm-labor rules would destroy farms' generational structure")
• The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
• The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.
• Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
• Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. It is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.
• The state control of communications and propaganda.

These characteristics are incipient in some countries, full-blown in others. If you check off those which are observable in the United States in 1942; in Britain, in Germany, in Mexico, in Japan, in Sweden, in Russia, a comparison of checkmarks will show some amazing parallels. Is the whole list good or bad? That is a meaningless question. Some items point strongly to community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is. Some are clearly contrary to the liberal democratic ideal. Most of them are anathema to the doctrines of Adam Smith. Good or bad, there they are, in the middle of the stage.


Study this list and think hard about it. At first reading, most Americans will not recognize it as something which applies to them. Yet there is not an item on the list which is not applicable in some degree to the United States. We have no official propaganda bureau yet, but the FCC controls radio broadcasting. Further, it is not a war list, though the war has increased the impact. These items are referents for "X," the new structure which is being molded, and for which there is as yet no name. Names are thrown around--"socialism," "state capitalism," "fascism,"-but they mean nothing, and only lead to confusion.


See also ...

• Download a PDF version of the complete "The Road We Are Traveling" [80.9 MB]
• A video rebuttal.

• And another, "The Road We Really Traveled" starring Barack Obama

The Stagecraft President Stages More Political Kabuki

Oops, he did it again.  President Obama is already on record with a number of news organizations for carefully stage-crafting town hall meetings with well-placed planted questions.  There were many such events during the health care "debate."  Here's but one example.

Of course, the President and his team insist that it's all just great luck.  Uh huh, right.



The latest example is the planted question by a well-connected, big-money donor to the Democratic Party at a town hall meeting scheduled staged at LinkedIn.  Uncharacteristically, the President had a well-thought-out, eloquent, impromptu answer, all without the aid of a teleprompter.

The man who asked the staged question was Doug Edwards, a former Google marketing executive and author of "I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59".

The media, of course, lapped it up.

Surprisingly, I saw little follow up investigation by the media.  Who was this guy?  What would prompt him to ask such a question?  What's his angle?

Well, according to campaign finance disclosures for "Doug Edwards" and "Douglas Edwards" of Los Altos, CA and Campbell, CA, the esteemed Mr. Campbell graciously donated some $465,682 to various political causes between 2004 and 2012.  Amazingly, every single recipient is either a member of the Democratic Party or associated with the Democratic Party.  What are the odds?

Despite residing in California, Mr. Edwards' generosity extended to a variety of other states, including Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.  Similarly, over $144,000 went to ActBlue, a money-laundering organization for the Democratic Party who bills themselves as "the online clearinghouse for Democratic action."  According to OpenSecrets.org, who tracks campaign spending at the national level, ActBlue is the #1 top all-time political donor with 99% of their money going to Democrats and 0% going to Republicans.

Mr. Edwards' biggest benefactors include:

• ActBlue (money-launderer for the Democratic Party): $144,100
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC): $73,900
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC): $68,900
• Gillibrand for Senate (Democrat): $12,000
• Ohio Democratic Party: $10,000 

You can find a detailed list of Mr. Edwards' political contributions here.  The few apparent duplicated contributions are because of simultaneous contributions to both primary and general election campaigns, given on the same date.  It is more difficult to find spending records for the state level, but records show that Mr. Edwards spent at least $14,500 across California, Wisconsin, and Iowa.  Some of his ActBlue spending may actually be for state candidates.

Mr. Edwards is also a public member of the self-proclaimed "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength".

In a few cases, Mr. Edwards' donated the maximum legal amount to various campaigns--well, the maximum legal amount unless you happen to be married.  Then, your wife can also contribute to the cause.

Mr. Edwards has indeed married very well. His amazingly bright and talented wife, Kristen, has a Ph.D. and M.A. from Stanford, degrees from Brown University and Middlebury College, and even studied at the Leningrad State University in the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, before it later became Saint Petersberg State University.

According to public campaign records, "Kristen Edwards" of Los Altos, CA gave another $113,400 to the Democratic Party and its causes.

Mrs. Edward's biggest benefactors include:

• ActBlue (money-launderer for the Democratic Party): $33,100
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC): $28,500

You can find a detailed list of Mrs. Edwards' political contributions here.  State donations are more difficult to track, but Mrs. Edwards spent at least $9,500 in California.  Some of her ActBlue spending may actually be for state candidates.

Ironically, the Edwards' don't need action from the President of the United States or even from the ineffectual U.S. Congress to increase their tax burden.  The Edwards' can contribute more of their money to taxes now, of their own free will, without waiting for the government to act.  Here's how.

Useful Information for Under-taxed Individuals

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/09/useful-information-for-under-taxed.html

So, we are left with a few possible conclusions:

1. The President is the luckiest man on the planet and just happened to call on someone in the audience who just happens to agree completely with the President's stance on taxation and his job bill.
2. That the Democratic Party really isn't the crack, money-making machine that we all believed and the President had no idea that someone who's family gave over $500,000 to the Party, over multiple years, across multiple states, was in the audience.  Me?  I give a minor amount to one Democratic Party candidate and I'm on their mailing list forever!
3. The President and his handlers have little respect for the intelligence of the American public or the American press.

See also ...

• Los Angeles Times: "'Raise my taxes,' town hall attendee tells Obama"
  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/26/news/la-pn-obama-town-hall-20110926

The Big Spenders Behind the Scenes

Many political pundits and even the President and Vice-President themselves are decrying the amount of money being spent behind the scenes in the 2010 election. I happen to agree, as I have been concerned about this for about a decade now. Nearly half a trillion dollars, some $480 million, was spent just on 527 committee activity in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and so far in the 2010 elections.

However, look at who and which organizations are spending behind the scenes by examining the contribution to 527 political organizations, otherwise known as "soft money." This money is not subject to the same legal constraints as direct contributions to a state or national candidate.

Fortunately, organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics (www.OpenSecrets.org) scour the required campaign disclosure statements and publish the results.

Here are the total for the top contributors to 527 committees for the time period covering the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 election cycles. Obviously, not all the 2010 contributions are included as the 2010 election is still in progress.

(link to table)

A few things are notable from the table and chart.

• The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the 800-pound gorilla of 527 campaign funding, providing nearly 30% of the total 527 funding. SEIU was a major contributor to the Obama Presidential campaign and various current and former SEIU executive members are now part of the Obama Administration, including frequent White House visitor, former SEIU President Andy Stern on the President's Deficit Commission and SEIU Secretary/Treasurer Anna Berger at the President's Small Business Summit.
• Many of those funding the Joint Victory Campaign 2004 are also major campaign contributors including George Soros of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, Peter B. Lewis of the appropriately named Progressive Corp., and Stephen Bing of Shangri-la Entertainment.
• Those contributing to the Victory Campaign 2004 (not to be confused with the Joint Victory Campaign) were primarily smaller donors.
• Nine of the top ten donors gives primarily to Democratic Party candidates. The one Republican-oriented group is Perry Homes. Robert J. Perry is perhaps most infamously known for the Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race.
• Golden West Financial is the brainchild of Herbert Sandler and Marion Sandler. Well Fargo Bank, who purchased Wachovia Corp. during the height of the 2008 financial crisism was forced to modify loans sold by Golden West Financial's World Savings, which was later purchased by Wachovia. Both of the Sandler's are major contributors to the Center for American Progress, a leftist, progressive think tank, also often connected with George Soros.

It is also interesting to see the contributions by election cycle. It becomes obvious that SEIU is the dominant 527 committee donor. It also becomes obvious of the huge sums spent in the 2004 and 2008 elections, which were Presidential election years.

(link to table)

See also ...

NPR: "Who's Who: Key Leaders Of Independent Groups"