Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Economic Ignorance is Far From Bliss

"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil. There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight."

Those are the shrill campaign promises of presidential candidate John McCain. This man is the Republican?

There's more.

"I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."

Let me get this straight. A potential president of a putatively free country scolds companies for "obscene profits," failure to invest in competing products, and therefore irresponsible citizenship. Why? Is McCain running for national economic commissar?

This is not the first time McCain has displayed an anti-capitalist mentality. In an early presidential debate he countered former businessman Mitt Romney's claim to superior executive experience by saying, "I led the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, not for profit but for patriotism".

Why the put down of profit?

It's clear McCain does not understand how markets work or why they are good. He certainly doesn't understand the role of speculators and other middlemen. He's not alone. Speculators are among the most reviled people in history. When they were members of ethnic minorities, they have been easy targets for economically illiterate people who were jealous of their success.
McCain wonders "whether speculation has been going on." He needn't wonder. Speculation always goes on. Speculation means to take a risk on what the future holds in hopes of making a profit. The world's stock and commodities markets are based on this principle. Sen. McCain must have meant it when he told reporters, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues".

I doubt that speculators are responsible for much of the run-up of oil prices. Why didn't they run them up sooner? Besides, there are too many other explanations: increased demand from China and India, the declining dollar and Middle East tensions.

Even if speculators did play a role, what McCain apparently doesn't understand is that speculators perform a valuable service. Most people don't realize this because on the surface speculators don't seem productive. They buy what already exists and resell it. How does that help society?

In fact, the hated speculator is a good guy because his buying and selling reduce volatility and uncertainty in an unpredictable world. He may only be out for his own profit, but that doesn't matter. As the intellectually immortal Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".

The prices of commodities often change unexpectedly, making business risky. The speculator brings a degree of certainty to otherwise risky ventures. When supplies of a commodity are plentiful and prices low -- but speculators expect the price to rise later -- they buy -- cushioning the collapse of prices. When supplies become scarcer and prices rise, they sell -- easing the shortage and lowering the price. Also, speculators may agree to buy a commodity in the future for a price locked in today. This reduces the risk for an oil producer or farmer who fears investing because he doesn't know what price his product will sell for next year.

As a result of these activities, volatile supplies and prices are evened out over time. Occasionally, speculators increase volatility. Markets are never perfect. (Although they are better than government regulation.) But in general, speculators increase liquidity and keep the market on a more even keel. This makes long-term planning easier for everyone.

It would be nice if McCain would finally learn some economics. He'll be far, far better than Barack Obama but McCain had better surround himself with economic advisers if he hopes to achieve anything like his so-called idol Ronald Reagan.

Monday, July 28, 2008

NEA: For education? Or for Communism?

The nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association, attracted 9,000 delegates to its annual convention in Washington, D.C., over the July Fourth weekend. Delegates sported buttons with provocative slogans such as "Gay marriage causes global warming only because we are so hot," "Hate is not a family value," "The Christian right is neither" and "Gay rights are civil rights."

The delegates passed dozens of hard-hitting resolutions that now become the NEA's official policy. The resolutions authorize NEA members and employees to lobby for those goals in the halls of Congress and state capitols.

NEA resolutions cover the waterfront of all sorts of political issues that have nothing to do with improving education for schoolchildren, such as supporting statehood for the District of Columbia, a "single-payer health care plan" (i.e., government run), gun control, ratification of the International Criminal Court Treaty and taking steps "to change activities that contribute to global climate change."

The NEA fiercely opposes any competition for public schools, such as vouchers, tuition tax credits, parental option plans or public support of any kind to nonpublic schools. The NEA strongly opposes designating English as our official language even though such a designation is supported by more than 80% of Americans.

The NEA opposes home schooling unless children are taught by state-licensed teachers using a state-approved curriculum. The NEA wants to bar home-schooled students from participating in any extracurricular activities in public schools even though their parents pay school taxes, too.

The NEA wants additional (job-creating) services and programs — such as early childhood education — provided by public schools. NEA resolutions call for "programs in the public schools for children from birth through age 8" and for "mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance."

NEA resolutions include all the major feminist goals such as "the right to reproductive freedom" (i.e., abortion on demand), "comparable worth" (i.e., government control of wages according to feminist ideology), full funding for the feminist boondoggle called the Women's Educational Equity Act and censoring all masculine words such as husband and father. The NEA even urges its affiliates to work for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was declared dead by the U.S. Supreme Court 26 years ago.

The influence of the gay lobby is pervasive in dozens of NEA resolutions adopted by 2008 convention delegates. Diversity is the code word used for pro-gay indoctrination in the classroom.

The NEA's diversity resolution makes clear this means teaching about "sexual orientation" and "gender identification." The NEA demands that "diversity-based curricula" be imposed on preschoolers.

NEA convention delegates were invited to an open hearing by the SOGI Committee. In case you don't know, SOGI stands for sexual orientation gender identification.

The NEA urges its members to offer "diverse role models" via the "hiring and promotion of diverse education employees in our public schools." The NEA puts "domestic partnerships, civil unions and marriage" on an equal footing.

The NEA wants every child, regardless of age, to have "direct and confidential access, without notification to parents, to comprehensive health education. That would include things such as learning how to use condoms for premarital sex, as well as social, and psychological programs and services."

The NEA wants public schools to take over the physical and mental care of students through school clinics that provide services, diagnosis, treatment, family-planning counseling and access to birth control methods. Family planning clinics are called on to "provide intensive counseling."

The NEA wants all sex-education courses, textbooks, curricula, instructional materials and activities to include indoctrination about sexual orientation and gender identification plus warnings about homophobia.

The NEA not only favors amnesty for illegal-immigrant students, but also in-state college tuition and financial aid to illegal-immigrant college students.

The NEA is strong for "multicultural education," which means "the process of incorporating the values" and influencing "behavior" toward the NEA's version of "the common good," such as "reducing homophobia."

Of course, the NEA supports "global education" to teach "interdependency in sharing the world's resources." It's also no surprise that it opposes any requirement that schools "schedule a moment of silence."

These platforms sound like they should coming from the ALCU or the DailyKos, not the organization that speaks for the nation's public school teachers. How can education attempt to be objective and unbiased when the NEA is spouting off garbarge like this?

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Wake up Mac, Start Fighting not Sleeping!

Iraqi Prime Minister and political stooge Nouri al-Maliki has cut the legs out from under John McCain by basically endorsing Sen. Barack Obama's troop-withdrawal plan.


Just when McCain had Obama on the defensive over the Democrat's plan to surrender after we've won in Iraq, Maliki has made McCain look like General Ripper for opposing a timetable for withdrawal.

Unless McCain changes his approach, he's lost the use of this issue. He can't come out for staying in Iraq longer than the government we support wants.

The Republican needs to shift the debate to Iraq's future. Neither Obama's belaboring of his previous opposition to the war nor McCain's attacking the Democrat's opposition to the surge is relevant - both lines are history lessons best left in the classroom. What voters want to know is: What now?

McCain needs to hammer at one basic theme: that Obama's pullout plan will lead to a third Iraq war. The Democrat wants to keep substantial numbers of troops next door, to go back into Iraq if necessary. McCain should stress that a premature withdrawal will lead to a collapse - losing the hard-won stability in Iraq, opening the door to an Iranian takeover and al Qaeda revival, and potentially forcing a new US invasion.

Obama isn't a peace candidate, McCain can say - just an advocate of a deferred war. Just as the first President George Bush left the ingredients in place for a second war when he failed to depose Saddam Hussein in 1991, so Obama will fail to finish the job and invite yet another war if he abandons Iraq before our gains have been consolidated.

With Ralph Nader running on a strict antiwar platform, Obama is vulnerable on the left. If he seems to falter on a withdrawal from Iraq, or leave the door open to re-entry, McCain's attacks can drive liberals away from the Democrat.

It's literally true that if McCain is elected, there will be fewer US deaths in Iraq than there will be if Obama prevails. By pulling out only when it's safe to do so, McCain would finish the job and allow a peaceful transition to a stable democratic government. If we pull out too fast - and then have to go back in - the casualties will be many times those we now face.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Whiny leftists need reality check

At a recent press conference Sen. John Kerry was upset as he snarled as only an angry liberal can, "Oil companies in America are reporting record profits. Record profits."

When did profit become a dirty word? When did it become bad to be successful? Probably somewhere around the time it became good to be a teenage mom and go on welfare.

I wish the oil executives would face the media. They could say something like:

"What are you complaining about? What do you think we do with our profits? Buy fancy cars and homes? Well, we do, actually, but nearly all the money goes to looking for more oil and following environmental rules that you want us to follow. You should want us to make more profit. Anyway, we make less profit per gallon than your beloved government takes in taxes."

Gas prices may be setting a record, but on this issue Congress has set a record for inanity. What else are we to say about an anti-"gouging" bill passed last year by the House that would make it a crime to charge "unconscionably excessive" prices, "tak[e] unfair advantage of unusual market conditions," and "increase prices unreasonably" during an emergency?

Please. Lawyers will get rich debating vague words like those. Laws are supposed to be clear so we'll know in advance what's legal and what's not. But there's nothing clear about those "crimes."
That's not legislation. It's legislative posturing by the liberal fools in our Congress. Considering the perverse incentives of electoral politics, I'm amazed this bill got only 284 votes.

And Congress should know better. After Hurricane Katrina, Congress had the Federal Trade Commission investigate price gouging, and so the FTC studied price spikes going back years. But it found "no instances of illegal manipulation."

If the politicians do enforce anti-"gouging" rules, it will be akin to capping prices, and we tried that before. It was a disaster. Drivers had to wait in long lines, and some couldn't get any gasoline. Only when price controls were lifted did supplies rush in, and only then did prices go back down.

Why did prices spike recently? It's just supply and demand. Demand is up 3 percent, while supply is up just 1 percent.

And gasoline is still a bargain. Think about what it takes to bring it to us: Drills must bend and dig sideways through as many as seven miles of earth. What they find has to be delivered through long pipelines or transported in monstrously expensive ships, then converted into three different formulas of gasoline, moved in trucks that cost more than $100,000 each, and shipped to gas stations that have to have lots of expensive equipment to make sure we don't blow ourselves up filling the tank. Even after all that, gasoline is still cheaper per ounce than the bottled water gas stations sell.

There's no dirtier word in English than "gouging." But we've had enough unpleasant experience with price controls to know that all they do is create shortages.

Who, but the politician, benefits from that?

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Let's Play the Numbers Game (I Don't Mean the Lottery.)

Presidential politics, like football, chess and other rule-bound competitions, is simple in objective but complex in execution. The objective is 270 electoral votes. This year the execution will turn on numbers such as:

48.3: In 2004, John Kerry won that percentage of the popular vote, the strongest showing ever by someone losing to a re-elected president. The lesson of this is that Democrats start from a position of strength.

251: That was John Kerry's electoral vote total. Barack Obama stands a better chance of holding Kerry's 19 states and the District of Columbia, and finding 19 more votes, than John McCain does of holding all 31 of Bush's states.

Obama might capture the 2004 red states New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Nevada (5) and Colorado (9) - George W. Bush won them by a combined 127,011 votes - giving him 270. McCain, who in his 10-year campaign for the presidency has lingered in New Hampshire long enough to vote as a resident, might turn it red, gaining 4 votes.

Obama, however, has reasonable hopes of winning Iowa (7), which Al Gore won by 4,144 votes out of 1,315,563 cast in 2000. Bush won it in 2004 by 10,059 out of 1,506,908 cast. And Obama's estimated 90,000 caucus votes this year almost equaled combined 118,167 won by Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, McCain, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani.

Furthermore, Obama might carry Virginia (13). Bush won it with 54 percent in 2004, but rapid demographic changes favor Democrats and Obama won this year's primary with 623,141 votes while McCain was beating Mike Huckabee with 244,135.

Should former Sen. Sammy Nunn (a name only found below the Mason-Dixon line) be his running mate, Obama might win Georgia. Obama's 700,366 primary votes were more than Huckabee's 326,069 and McCain's 303,639, combined.

41 and 21: Obama lost by 41 points the primary in West Virginia, which is contiguous to Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), where he lost the primary by 10 points, partly because, as in West Virginia, he was unappealing to blue-collar whites. McCain might hope to win Pennsylvania - assuming that Obama's running mate is not the state's popular Gov. Ed Rendell.

7.2 percent and negative 1.2 percent: Michigan's first-quarter unemployment rate of 7.2 was the nation's worst and Michigan was one of just three states, and the only Midwest state, whose economies contracted (Michigan's by 1.2 percent) in 2007.

Democrats misgovern Michigan, so McCain, especially if running with native son Mitt Romney, might hope to turn Michigan, with its 17 electoral votes, red for the first time since 1988.

55: California has that many electoral votes, more than one-fifth of 270. McCain, who likely will be relying on $84.1 million taxpayer dollars, cannot afford to compete in California.

15: Obama, probably relying on voluntary contributions, will have enough to spend speculative millions on, say, North Carolina (15). In 2004, Bush won it with 1,961,166 votes (56 percent) but in this year's primary, where turnout was below what it'll be in November, Obama (875,683) and Clinton (652,824) got 1,528,507, slightly more than Kerry received in the 2004 general election.

56: That is the number of jurisdictions that will be deciding the allocation of the 270.
There are 50 states and the District of Columbia. Maine and Nebraska, however, award two electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote, and one to whichever candidate carries each congressional district. Maine has two districts, Nebraska three.
Since the two states decided to abandon winner-take-all allocation of their electoral votes (Maine in 1969, Nebraska in 1991), each state's congressional districts have not differed in their presidential preferences. But Nebraska's Second District is, essentially, Omaha. Obama might sense an opportunity.

4: That is the number of commas in the number of possible combinations of jurisdictions that can give a candidate 270 or more electoral votes. The votes disposed by the jurisdictions range from one (the Maine and Nebraska congressional districts) to three (7 states and DC) to California's 55, with 17 different numbers between three and 55.

2016: Assuming, that Obama wins, 2016 is the next time Hillary Clinton, who will then be 68, can seek the Democratic nomination. By then, the median age of the electorate will be 47, so for many millions of voters, Bill Clinton's tenure will seem only slightly less distant than Grover Cleveland's, the last Democratic presidency that did not make sensible citizens wince.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Flip-Flop and Overtalk

Democratic presidential wannabe Barack Obama seems to be flip-flopping on his "unconditional" willingness to sit down to tea and crumpets with the dictatorial leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Obama's vow to meet with such leaders during his first year in office, without preconditions, drew widespread and well-deserved criticism. Over the past few polling cycles, however, he's tempered that to something the focus groups say America wants to hear.

"Without preconditions," he now says, doesn't necessarily mean without "preparations" - that is, without lower-level, informal contacts that would set an agenda for any meeting between leaders.

In the case of Iran, that's surely a welcome move. Just this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Tehran continues to hide the truth about its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad," Obama said Monday. "He's not the most powerful person in Iran."

And the Illinois senator's top foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice, said over the weekend that Cuba must make "concrete progress" toward free elections, allow a free press and free political prisoners as a requirement to "initiate a process through engagement."

Of course, he hasn't fully ruled out sitting down with Tehran's tyrant, who has vowed to "annihilate" Israel and denies the Holocaust occurred and stones people to death for crimes such as adultery and immodesty in public.

These talks would have little (or no) effect on the government of Iran. A fundamentalist government which believes they are doing the will of Allah by fighting the infidel Americans who dare to let women go out in public wearing something that is pleasant to look at.

As GOP presidential contender John McCain said yesterday, "Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is to have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran - as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly."
Let's face it: Tehran, in particular, seems bent on building nukes - and continues to sponsor terror. Sitting down for a few photo ops isn't going to change that, and only someone as out of touch as Barack Obama would think it could!

Monday, May 19, 2008

Barack Obama: The Commie's Trojan Horse

As this long primary season drags on, the presumed Democratic nominee for president still won't bring his vision for "change" into focus. He continues to speak in glittering generalities, providing few details.

The reticence, combined with Obama's radical ties, begs the question: Is he hiding an un-American agenda?

We know his longtime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, detests America and its capitalist system, viewing it as unjust, oppressive and enslaving to minorities. He and his fellow travelers think they have in Obama the perfect candidate to remake America into a self-loathing dispenser of apologetic largesse to victim groups at home and Marxist regimes abroad.
Key among these is reverend-turned-professor James Cone, who believes merging Marxism with the Gospel will liberate African-Americans from the supposed economic slavery of "white" capitalism. "Together," he says, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society."

Cone is the mentor of Obama's mentor, Wright. Wright adopted Cone's "black liberation theology" as his church's core doctrine. According to Cone, the reverend "is really the one who took it from my books and brought it to the church."

Cone's books are required reading at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has worshiped for the past 20 years. Trinity instituted the theology and its attendant "black value system" a full decade before Obama formally pledged membership in 1991.
Cone describes black liberation theology as "a faith that does justice," a concept embraced by Obama, who's even argued that "racial justice" cannot be achieved without "economic justice."
According to the theology, divine justice will come when black Jesus (Obama's church believes Christ was black) grants African-Americans the power to permanently destroy "white greed" and white institutions and replace them with their own "black value system."

Cone writes that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy" and all its institutions.

Trinity demands its members pledge allegiance instead to "black institutions" and "black leadership," and patronize black-only businesses. Obama himself has said America's institutions are "broken" and need to be "fixed."

Obama has recently tried to distance himself from his crackpot pastor, but he hasn't disavowed any part of the Marxist pseudo faith that embodies everything Wright has preached. He refuses to respond to even written questions about Cone and black liberation theology.
His campaign last year confirmed the doctrine is included in new-member packets provided by the church, and is taught in new-member classes. Both Obama and his wife have attended these classes, so it stands to reason they have been indoctrinated into the radical theology.
And Obama in his first book defended black liberation theology as sensible, and has even called his tutelage under Wright "the best education I ever had."

Nowadays, Obama has another, prettier sounding term for his Afrocentric, black-first theology: the "social gospel." "Rev. Wright's sermons spoke directly to the social gospel," he has said, "and I found that very attractive." Apparently the social gospel Obama believes in is one where the CIA created AIDS and is secretly working with the U.S. government to exterminate black people so drug companies can test new drugs on them.

Wright says his sermons are inspired by Cone's books, the contents of which should repulse every patriotic American, white or black. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores," Cone writes.

That Marxist commitment to revolution doesn't stop at the water's edge. Obama's church in the 1980s rallied to the cause of communist regimes in America's backyard — from Cuba to Grenada to Nicaragua — while downplaying the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

From his pulpit, Wright whitewashed the brutality of the Sandinista junta and condemned the U.S. for backing the contra freedom fighters.

"Our congregation stood in solidarity with the peasants in El Salvador and Nicaragua while our government was supporting the contras, who were killing peasants in those two countries," Wright recently thundered.

The black liberation theology adopted by his church is "very similar," Wright says, to the "liberation theology" espoused by the Marxist revolutionaries whom the contras fought in Nicaragua.

Wright also condemned as "terrorism" the U.S. invasion of Grenada to oust a budding militant Marxist regime. "We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies," Wright claimed.
Does Obama intend to carry on that tradition of appeasing socialist despots in our hemisphere, starting with Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez? Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega will no doubt also find support. The Marxist thug has already endorsed Obama's campaign as "revolutionary."
While Obama has refused to wear a flag pin or stand with respect during the national anthem, he certainly doesn't look or speak the part of an angry anti-American race revolutionist. But appearances may be deceiving. His positions often align with black liberation theology.

"I don't see anything in (Obama's) books or in the (Philadelphia race) speech that contradicts black liberation theology," Cone recently remarked. Obama has just sanded over the "radical edge to it," he said.

Does Obama speak in a code recognizable to fellow travelers but not to most voters, who would be frightened off by a radical agenda? "If you're black, it's hard to say what you truly think and not upset white people," Cone said.

Obama has learned a trick, however, to put the evil white America at ease: "smile" and act "well mannered." And don't "seem angry" or make any "sudden moves," as he shared in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

Also, talk about "hope" without saying what exactly it is you're hoping for. That way, everybody will bring their own miasma of sugarplum delusions and just assume that is what you're talking about. Tellingly, Cone writes a good deal about "hope theology" — which "places the Marxist emphasis on action and change in the Christian context (and) is compatible with black theology's concerns."

Likewise, Obama has suggested he'd use his faith as "an active, palpable agent in the world," and a source of "hope" in overcoming "economic injustice."

"I still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change," Obama said in a 2006 speech to the Washington-based socialist group, Call to
Renewal.

Speaking of black revolution, Cone in his memoir said, "Hope is the expectation of that which is not. It is the belief that the impossible is possible, the 'not yet' is coming in history."
Here's Obama in his 2004 DNC convention speech: "Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope! In the end, a belief in things not seen, a belief that
there are better days ahead."

In his 1969 book, "Black Theology and Black Power," which Trinity uses as a second bible, Cone said: "When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers."
Here's Obama, in his 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech: "The black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, and challenge powers and principalities."

Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, says Obama has been "very careful" to avoid the path of failed presidential hopefuls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who openly militated for black causes. "He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of black people," Farrakhan said.

When Obama marched on Washington with Farrakhan last decade, he said blacks turn to "black nationalism whenever we have a sense, as we do now, that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."

He added they have to be smart about how they protest and go about reforming the system. "Cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done," he said. "We've got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do."

His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.

One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.

West, along with Wright and Cone, has argued for reparations for blacks. Obama seemed to sow the grounds for such a case in his Philadelphia speech.

"So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow," he said. "We still haven't fixed them."

He added, "That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white."
Trinity's mission statement calls for "economic parity." Such anti-capitalist views are reflected in Obama's rhetoric and proposals.

Rated by The University of Maryland as the most liberal member in the Senate, Obama wants to soak the most productive members of society and subsidize those who are not. He wants to hit small businesses and big corporations alike with major tax hikes — singling out for special rebuke oil producers and "Wall Street predators" who have "tricked" blacks out of their homes. At the same time, he plans to expand the welfare state with massive increases in domestic spending.
"We have more work to do," he told black graduates at Howard University last September. "It's time to seek a new dawn of justice in America. . . . We can right wrongs we see in America."
Cone says he wants to see a "new system" in America "in which people have the distribution of wealth." He adds, "I don't know how quite to do that institutionally."

Enter a Harvard-educated lawyer and Southside Chicago-trained community organizer who has a real shot at institutional power. As Obama promised black graduates at Hampton University last June, "We're going to usher in a new America."

Sounds like an attempt to backdoor traditional, pinko socialism.