I had an "a-ha" moment the other day!  I suddenly realized why the government might be allowing the debt to skyrocket. But I will get to that soon.  First...

It's becoming more well known that elements of the US government and US big business have been involved in stealing large amounts of money from the American middle class.  Before I begin writing about Social Security, left me outline theft from the middle class.

This article of mine mentioned the thousands of comments demonstrating public outrage over the SEC's refusal to stop financial institutions from engaging in theft.  Institutions were stealing money directly from investors, through the issuance of massive numbers of counterfeit shares.  The SEC allowed this to occur for many years.

Lately, I had been thinking that there were few remaining areas from which the criminal elites could plunder middle class wealth.  I believe that the middle class (and in some cases the upper and lower classes) have had money directly stolen from them in the following areas:


1) Gasoline: You could argue that there's been enormous theft resulting from criminals illegally raising the price of oil (which leads to higher gasoline prices). There is substantial evidence of this; however, I will analyse this in a future article.

If gasoline prices are, say, 50% higher than they would be if the market was fair, and if a typical American spends, say, $3,000 a year on gas, then the extra $1,000 spent as a result of criminally high prices (meaning one spends $3,000 instead of $2,000 annually) results in theft of about $300 billion from Americans from criminal gasoline related action alone!

2) Higher retail prices: Although I haven't extensively investigated this, I think it's reasonable to assume that big business has probably been charging higher prices for their products since the 2007-2009 recession. One report did suggest that 2010 prices have been rising quicker than inflation:

"Holiday spending reached the highest level on record last year, but that news isn't as good as it sounds."

"Although inflation has been tame over the past few years, holiday spending would have had to clear $478 billion to signify spending was back to pre-recession levels."

How is it that retailers have apparently been able to raise prices?  After all, even though the recession is officially over, the economy is still in the dumps!  If it wasn't for the artificial boost to GDP that has resulted from government borrowing, the economy would appear to be in far worse shape! (And that is its actual condition, since borrowing can eliminate every single recession by simply pumping in more money to produce more GDP!")

That fact that retailers are apparently raising prices at a rate quicker than some of their costs are rising (inflation) is perhaps more astonishing given this:  People's recessionary shift from buying at higher priced stores to buying at lower priced stores, like dollar stores and WalMart (although that shift in habits may have begun to reverse, which would negate some or all of this paragraph's argument).

Rather, perhaps Walmart and dollar stores are some of the businesses that are actually also raising their prices at a high rate?  Just because their final prices are lower than their competition doesn't mean they can't raise their prices at rates higher than inflation (or their competition's rates).

Regardless of which US businesses are the culprits, what accounts for this apparent overall phenomenon of disproportionately higher prices being charged by big business?

Well, this is my theory:  I believe that so many small businesses have failed and gone bankrupt during the recession, that big businesses now have far fewer competitors post-recession as compared to pre-recession!

And when you have less competition, you can charge higher prices, everything else being equal.  It's simple supply and demand.

This brings me back to my initial assumption:  that prices are rising.

One reason I didn't do an extensive investigation to confirm that prices have been rising is because it would be expected that prices would rise more than they would otherwise, resulting from the above mentioned change in supply:  Since small businesses have been hit disproportionately hard during the recession; it means that big businesses have less competition and it's to be expected that they would be raising prices at a rate greater than their costs are raising and greater than they otherwise would.  (Small businesses have been hit hard in a variety of ways:  When consumers spend less, they are more likely to reduce spending at the small businesses who charge more due to higher costs, and consumers tend to gravitate to big businesses that have lower costs and can charge less.  When the credit crunch occurred and lending froze, many small businesses were out of luck, while large businesses were more likely to have enough cash to weather the lending freeze, and some businesses were able to borrow from the government instead!)

So, why do I consider the price raises to be considered criminal theft?  Well, I don't consider them to be direct criminal theft, at least in most cases.  I believe it's indirect criminal theft:  because criminal actions led to the theft of wealth from investors, a high unemployment rate and less retail spending, it led to more small business failures; therefore, the criminal actions eventually contributed to small businesses failing.  As a result, big business has less competition and raises prices, indirectly benefiting from the criminal actions that started the recession!

3) Home Prices:  there is no doubt that home prices were artificially and criminally high as a result of loans given to people that weren't actually qualified.  Because there were more people buying homes than there should've been, more people bid for homes and bid prices up.

As a result of the illegal provision of mortgages to unqualified people, criminals benefited by pocketing commissions and fees that they otherwise wouldn't have pocketed (or would've pocketed but at smaller amounts), resulting in theft from mortgage holders (however, some mortgage holders were at least partially at fault: the ones who lied about their assets on the mortgage applications).

Now, it is true that wealthy criminals also suffered from the housing downturn, and in fact they initially probably lost a greater dollar value than the middle class did, in absolute terms.  However, in respect of the housing related criminal actions, I believe it's likely that the wealthy criminals will still end up having benefited in the long term.

In the short term, their criminal actions results in a starting advantage, resulting from the fees they earned on illegal mortgage transactions and artificially high prices.  They then suffered a loss in their home's value that was greater than the middle class suffered, but the middle class was more likely to be forced to foreclose as a result of the decreased home value and greater subsequent unemployment (foreclosure means a complete loss of their investment, since one loses all of the money they've paid on their mortgage when the bank takes over the home).

Also, the wealthy criminals were more likely than the middle class to be able to buy a second home at their newly depressed prices, positioning them to be able to profit in the long term if home prices rise.  The second home could also provide them with immediate revenue by renting the homes out to people (and you'd think there might be even more demand for that these days, pushing up rental prices, given the huge numbers of people that have foreclosed on homes and been forced to become renters again!)

However, some of the middle class victims may have been able to actually benefit, in one sense at least, from foreclosure, by being able to simply walk away from the home.  By doing that, although they lost their entire investment in the mortgage, they have avoided paying the difference between the home's new lowered price and the original mortgage value. Although mortgage holders have benefited in this regard, remember that they haven't actually benefited by an amount that you might think they've saved, because their original mortgage value was artificially high in the first place!

It would probably take a complex analysis in order to estimate whether the advantages homeowners enjoyed by being able to walk away from their mortgage would outweigh the costs they suffered when they paid artificially high commissions and housing transaction fees that they otherwise wouldn't have, since they shouldn't have been sold the home in the first place!

Also, even if the middle class had an advantage when looking only at their ability to walk away from the mortgage, certainly not all walked away from their mortgage, and I would venture that most didn't.

Also, even if homeowners did enjoy an initial advantage resulting from being able to walk away from their mortgage debt, there are two more costs resulting from having walked away:  1) A lower credit score (which likely resulted in their paying higher interest on some existing loans, difficulty getting new loans, and prevented them from buying a home again anytime soon);  2) Money lost by being forced to rent a home, meaning none of their monthly payment is going towards an actual investment!

4) The stock market:  Widespread theft from the investments of the middle class has been well documented, I don't need to investigation it here.  Needless to say, Deep Capture provides numerous articles confirming the theft; here's a good article of theirs outlining the massive amount of theft resulting from sales of counterfeit shares.

5)  Free trade agreements:  If free trade agreements have led to greater ability of big business to fire American workers and replace them with lower paid foreign workers, that Americans have been hurt (and big businesses have benefited, in the short term at least, by having lower costs and greater profits).

However, it's unclear whether this could be considered criminal or not, because I am unaware of whether the elite who signed the agreements knew that a result would be that big business would benefit at the direct cost to Americans.

So, I've outlined direct and indirect theft from the middle class having occurred in the areas of gasoline, higher overall retail prices, home mortgages and the stock market.

Where else can criminals find money to steal?  How many other potential areas are there?  Aren't there fewer assets remaining to steal? Yes, there are fewer. Criminals may need to start looking in other areas.

Which brings me to my next topic.


Social Security is an asset that Americans are supposed to be guaranteed to receive upon retirement.  Is it possible that wealthy criminals and elements of the US government have been plotting to attempt to steal at least a portion of Social Security funds from Americans?

After having my recent "a-ha" moment, this is a big worry of mine.  I do believe it's plausible that the government will attempt to enact laws that will result in future Social Security payments being lowered.

Why?  Because the deficit and debt are out of control, and the government might need to lower costs (which can be achieved by lowering Social Security payments) in order to pay down government debt and avoid default.

Now, if the government does do this, it doesn't necessarily mean that the action is theft from the American people.  I would argue that it's only theft if some people have plotted this course intentionally, as a means to eventually unfairly take money from Americans.

The following is an analysis meant to outline whether it's plausible that a plot has been in place.  It is not meant to suggest that it's likely that a plot actually is in existence.  It's simply an attempt to provide a hypothesis that would connect the dots between things that have occurred.

Is it plausible that there's a plan in motion to steal Americans' Social Security? Yes. Consider the following:

The debt has been increasing rapidly since at least 1970.  In recent decades, it appears that the debt has been doubling approximately every 7 to 14 years:

1970: 1,038.3 million
1977: 2,030.1     (7 yrs to double)
1984: 3,930.9     (7 yrs to double)
1996: 7,838.5     (12 yrs to double)
2010: 14,623.9   (14+ yrs to double)

You may be shocked to see that the rate of the increase under Clinton and George W Bush actually decreased versus earlier decades! (A further analysis would be needed to determine how much interest rate variation played in the slowing rate).

It's possible that elites have been plotting to raise the debt for a very long time, with the specific intent of using the debt as an excuse to pass legislation that reduces social security payments in order to pay down the debt.

If there has indeed been such a plot, it's unclear when it would've started.  Although the debt increased massively under Reagan, perhaps it was done with the main intent to purchase arms and win the Cold War.  Notably, Clinton actually reversed deficits in his final years, but the debt still rose from 6667.4 to 10,286.2 during his terms (some of that was due to interest on the debt, it wasn't all from annual deficits).

That leaves us with George W. Bush and Obama.  Could a Social Security plot have started with Bush and continued with Obama, given that Bush was the one who reversed the Clinton annual budget surplus? It's plausible, given the other criminal actions that accelerated (but may not have originated) under Bush's watch (I'm referring to stock market and housing market crimes).

And as for Obama...well, just read this expose of mine and you'll see that he is hardly an honest individual.  It wouldn't be surprising if he was involved in an attempt to effectively steal Social Security payments.

To be fair, I believe that George W Bush, at one point during his terms, stressed the need for Social Security reform.  If there is a Social Security plot, perhaps this was simply lip service from Bush, knowing that Congress wouldn't act...or perhaps Bush wasn't involved, perhaps members of Congress are involved in a plot...or perhaps lobbyists and elites behind the scenes simply use politicians as puppets.

Although the rate of debt increase slowed under George W Bush, that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't aware of or part of a plot.  The debt increase could've slowed for many reasons:  trying to appear to placate the public; lower interest rates post Sep 11, and other reasons.

Some might argue that it's not realistic to believe that elites could continue a plot for decades.  I disagree.  I'm not saying it's probable, just realistic.

Also, not every President/Congress would've had to be in cahoots.  It's entirely possible that Reagan increased the debt out of genuine concern for national security (by spending on the military); we know Clinton attempted to begin decreasing the debt; which leaves Bush.  Again, perhaps a plot started with Bush.

Also, wealthy big business has been basically influencing Congress for decades, and they could've easily discovered a Social Security plot decades ago and kept supporting candidates who backed them.  The Federal Reserve, which is actually privately, not governmentally owned (!), has been around since the early 20th century.

It would be interesting to see if a rapid increase in the debt occurred soon after Social Security was first created. 


Are there any other reasons that suggest that elites may be plotting to run up the debt as an excuse to taken money from Social Security?

Well, how about this: the fact that the debt has been massive for years, yet Congress is unwilling to pass legislation that will reduce government spending!  What does Congress expect the eventual outcome of the debt increase to be?  Eventually there may be a breaking point, a point when the currency may inflate rapidly, dropping the value of the US dollar, a point where the government may default on their debt, a point where lenders stop lending to the US, a point where the US can't even make the interest payments!

Now, perhaps Congress actually intends to default on their debt.  Perhaps they feel that the extremely harmful effect default would have on the US economy is outweighed by the benefits that the US will enjoy by defaulting on their debt:  not repaying the debt! (Which means they borrowed money to buy things but don't pay it back!)

Perhaps this would also explain another curious government policy, their curious lack of action in punishing China (which could easily be achieved by taxing imports from China) for pegging and devaluing their currency to the point that Chinese goods are so cheap to Americans (and American goods are so expensive to the Chinese) that Americans buy much more from the Chinese than they sell to the Chinese.

This is a MASSIVE transfer of wealth that's been occurring annually. It's direct theft of Americans by the Chinese. That's simply what it is! (It's theft because the Chinese don't let a fair market determine the dollar/yuan exchange rate, they set the rate at a level that's advantageous to themselves).

Perhaps Congress intends on paying back the Chinese by saying:  "You fucked us for many years, now we're going to get the last laugh...we're not paying you back any of the money you've lent us over the years, money we've had to borrow from you because you've been stealing our money through currency manipulation".

So, it's definitely plausible that there hasn't been a plot by Congress to run up the debt in order to justify stealing Social Security from Americans; they may intend to run up the debt so they can default on it, or they may be running it up as a result of simple incompetence (unlikely) or as a result of excessive spending resulting from kickbacks to politicians in the form of "pork" spending.

But it's still plausible that there's a Social Security plot.  Let's investigate it further.


Because it means that they don't have to pay as much towards the debt themselves!  (After all, in 2008 the top 10% of income earners paid 69.94% of all income taxes paid!)  If the time comes that a serious effort is made to pay down the debt, the only place the money can come from is the wealthy and the corporations!  Nobody else has enough money to make as significant a dent in the debt!  In 2008, the top 25% of income earners paid 86.34% of the total income taxes paid!

So, by reducing Social Security and using that money to instead pay down the debt, it means the wealthy no longer have as much debt to pay themselves!  If there's been a plot to do this intentionally, then it's direct theft from the American people!  In effect, this plot would reduce the progressive income tax rates that higher income earners are supposed to earn, because the burden of paying down the debt suddenly shifts a bit closer to the non-wealthy! Pretty clever way to appear to be paying those high income tax rates!

Now, it's true that if Social Security payments are lowered, the wealthy would have their Social Security payments lowered too.  But that's a small sacrifice, versus the relatively huge benefit gained by their not having to pay down the debt!

In fact, the wealthy have to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, so they don't end up keeping as much of their benefits as other Americans do.  Therefore, compared to the non-wealthy, if Social Security was cut back, the wealthy wouldn't see as much of a reduction in their income anyway! (One filing jointly has to pay federal taxes on Social Security if they earn over $32,000.  In fact, up to 85% of Social Security is taxable if "the total of one-half of your benefits and all your other income is more than $34,000 ($44,000 if you are married filing jointly)".

About how much would the wealthy benefit if Social Security was reduced significantly?

Let me try to simplify things:

What the wealthy versus the non-wealthy will immediately LOSE if SS benefits are reduced

Although all eligible Americans would lose the total gross reduction of benefits, the wealthy would lose only a small portion of the net after tax Social Security benefit reduction (because if they would have received the money that was taken away, they would have been taxed on it at high rates anyway).

In contrast, the non-wealthy will lose most or all of their net Social security reduction, because their benefits are either not taxed at all or taxed at lower rates.

Example (my actual percentages aren't accurate; but in order to make my point, there need only be a difference in tax rates between the wealthy and non-wealthy):

Let's say gross benefits were reduced by $100 a month for everyone.

Let's say the wealthy pay 85% tax on Social Security benefits.  If there hadn't been the $100 reduction in gross benefits, they would've receive that $100 and then paid $85 tax, and only kept $15.  So, by reducing their gross benefits by $100, they are really only losing $15 net.

Let's say the non-wealthy pay 20% tax on Social Security benefits.  If there hadn't been the $100 reduction in gross benefits, they would've received that $100 and then paid $20 tax, and kept $80.  So, by reducing their gross benefits by $100, they are losing $80 net.

So, one direct result is that the wealthy would lose less than the non-wealthy if Social Security Benefits were reduced.

What the wealthy versus the non-wealthy will immediately GAIN if SS benefits are reduced

When benefits are reduced, the money can go directly to paying down the debt.

The wealthy will benefit greatly from this, since they (and corporations) are the ones that would be called on to pay down the debt, since they are the ones with most of the money (10% of them pay 69.94% of income taxes).

In contrast, the non-wealthy would also benefit by there being less debt to pay, but not nearly as much, because the non-wealthy pay a small proportion of taxes, and hence are expected to pay little of the debt anyway.

So, one direct result is that the wealthy would gain more than the non-wealthy if Social Security Benefits were reduced.

Note that these are only some direct benefits that I'm referring to.  A more complete examination would involve looking at externalities related to the benefits reduction, but that's complex and outside of the scope of this article. Some possible externalities:  1) Since the non-wealthy would become even less wealthy in relative terms, they may be more desperate for money and willing to work for lower wages, which would raise the profits of wealthy corporations.  2) Since some non-wealthy would work for lower wages and then earn less, they will spend less on retail goods, lowering the profits of the wealthy corporations.

Looking only at these two externalities, does it appear that their effects cancel each other out?

Think again!  The wealthy may be the winner again!

The non-wealthy could be earning $100 less, and the wealthy might in turn make $100 less revenue from that person, but the wealthy person isn't actually losing $100 like the non-wealthy person is. The wealthy person is just losing the profit portion of the $100.  Part of that $100 would tend to be paid towards fixed costs that would be paid anyway, like labor and cost of goods sold!  Also, this example didn't even mention the immediately greater profit the company made when they lowered their costs and paid the non-wealthy $100 less in the first place, triggering this sequence!


The main benefits (not the externalities) that are listed above are the immediate benefits that a Social Security reduction would provide to the wealthy (in terms of the taxes and debt reduction that would occur in the tax year that the reduction took place, or soon after).

But there are other, ongoing, benefits that the wealthy may enjoy!

If Social Security payments remain at the reduced level, that means that the money saved annually by the reduction can be used to pay down the debt annually.

Or, because less money will be paid out in benefits annually, less money could be collected.  The wealthy may be asked to provide less tax income.

In 2010,  the first $106,800 of employee taxable income was taxed at 6.2%, and matched by the employer.

A wealthy employee making $200,000 would pay $6,621.60, while someone earning $35,000 would pay $2,170.

But if less money was being paid in Social Security, and less was to be collected, they might lower the limit from $106,800 to, say, $75,000.  The wealthy would benefit while many non-wealthy would pay the same amount!

And also, even if the wealthy saw as large of a net cut in their benefits as the non-wealthy did, the wealthy need the money far less than poorer Americans do.  Which leads me to yet another benefit that the wealthy will earn (er, wrong word? Let's use "enjoy") if Social Security payments are lowered:

The poorest of those receiving Social Security will now earn less money, and more of them will be unable to support themselves and pay for health treatment (assuming the government doesn't cover all of that).

This should lead to a lower life expectancy for those people, meaning they die earlier, and their Social Security payments would end earlier than otherwise would have if the payments hadn't been reduced in the first place! (In some cases after death, benefits would simply transfer to a spouse, but those spouses, many of whom also would have reduced benefits, would be dying earlier too!)

Because people would be dying earlier and Social Security payments ending earlier, the government would be paying even less in Social Security, and could justify collecting even less in taxes from the wealthy people!


So, to summarize, it's very worrying to think that there could be a plot by elites to run up the debt as an excuse to reduce Social Security.

Heck, regardless of whether there has been a plot or not, it's worrying to think that Social Security might be reduced in order to pay down the debt!

This would almost certainly harm the non-wealthy and benefit the wealthy.

Let's hope this won't be the case.

This is the first article in a new series titled "Evolution's Impact".

The series will spotlight "a-ha!" moments of mine.  Moments when I suddenly became aware of something interesting that others don't seem to be aware of!  In hindsight, you may feel that my views are common sense, but I suspect that you will find that I'm the first person you've encountered who's made the point that I make!

The series will examine specific human behaviors and attempt to determine the evolutionary reasons leading to the creation (or evolution) of that specific human behavior.

The series will examine interesting evolutionary roots of behavior.  It will not focus on more obvious roots, such as the evolution of opposable thumbs in response to the need to grasp objects with one's hand.

Today's article will focus on human accents.  Accents, as in the way a given language sounds different when spoken in different regions.

What are the evolutionary roots that led to accents being developed?

This is my theory:

Before cars were developed (and perhaps before other methods of transportation, such as ships, were developed), people traveled much less often than they do today (and when they did travel, not as far).  This is obvious not only because of the lack of speedy transportation available at the time, but because people tended to have larger families, with many children.  Having many children (and having any children at all) meant that parents felt more obligated to stay with their family in order to shelter, protect and provide for their children.  In those days, you couldn't work out of town and Fedex money to your family!  Also, farms were very common back then.  Daily harvesting wouldn't have allowed for much traveling at all, unless it was out of season.

Because people tended not to travel as much, you ended up with many settlements of different groups of people located in multiple locations within a country.

However, travel was not impossible.  One could travel by horse, for example, or walking.

Now think of the community and it's relationship with crime.  I would say that a member of a community is more likely to be robbed by someone from outside their community than by another member of their community, for several reasons: 1) the shame and economic hardship it could bring on the criminal and his family; after all, in relatively small communities there are stronger social links.  2) People often associate with their in-group more than they do an out-group.  They have incentives to help other members of their community.  3) It's easier to commit a crime against a total stranger rather than someone whom you are more likely to know

Also, consider that in those days, committing violence with the aim to steal resources may have been considered more acceptable, and been more common, than it is today. Look at how common wars were back then.  You also had colonialism and slavery.

How could people living in larger communities be sure that the people they meet are indeed members of their community and not outsiders that may rob or kill them? After all, people living in different communities often look very similar to each other!

The answer is simple:  people living in different regions would develop speech accents!  People from different communities were immediately able to spot the outsiders.

I also argue that people's faces have evolved over time in such a manner to allow differentiation between members of different communities.  I've noticed that when I compare members of the same race who live in different cities, there are subtle facial differences to be found, even between residents of neighboring cities.  My ability to predict a stranger's city of birth (or at least narrow down the choices) has made more than one person feel uncomfortable with me!

But back to accents.

If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct?  Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know!  I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.

Now think about this:  you often hear about how slow evolution can progress.  There are plenty of examples of children who possess traits that aren't visibly evident in their parents.  Children have eyes that are colored different than their parents' eyes.  Tall children are often born to two short parents (this wouldn't be the most common scenario, but it occurs often enough that you can recount such instances).  Smart children are born to two parents of average intelligence.  The list goes on and on.

Although genes do pass down from parents to children, it would seem that, for some reason, the visible traits exhibited by the parents don't always pass down to their children.

But for some reason, a child always has the accent that their parent does! (Assuming, of course, that they were both born in the same region).

This is strongly suggestive of the following:  evolution considered an accent to be extremely important; so important that every single person in a region develops that trait!

And how about the fact that it takes a long time for people to lose their accent once they move to a new region?  It often takes years for people to lose their accent.beneficial for accents to take a long time to diminish!

At the same time, one that has resided in a new community for a lengthy period of time is now more likely to be loyal to their new community (this is evidenced by the fact that they have resided there for so long!)  Evolution has provided a way for these people to be recognized; their accent diminishes, or is completely eliminated.  And for the people that have only a trace of their accent audible, that's an evolutionary sign too:  a sign that someone was once a member of another community, but has been a member of the current community for a very long period of time.

I'd be interested in learning how far back in history one can find records that attest to the existence of accents.  Readers, please let me know!
In Part 5 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I outlined points 12) to 16), the final five troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.

In Part 6 below, I will conclude with an analysis of the voter mindset during the 2008 election process.


The sixteen factors identified above are, although lengthy, not a complete list of the troubling factors surrounding Soetoro prior to his election.  However, the list includes most of the factors I find to be serious.

There were so many troubling circumstances.  Some of those circumstances were extremely troubling.  There is no doubt that a rational voter should have easily made the determination that Seotoro was not a good candidate for President.  The election shouldn't have been close at all.

But is it possible that most voters actually did agree that Seotoro was a troubling candidate, yet chose to select him over McCain, thinking that Soetoro was the lesser of two evils?

No, that's not plausible.  There were very few, if any at all, troubling circumstances surrounding McCain.  It's possible he may have flip flopped on an issue or two, but I can't think of many prominent flip flops off hand (although I have a feeling he may have flip flopped on immigration reform).  He certainly was not a serial flip flopper like Soetoro.  In fact, McCain chose to stick to his word even when Soetoro flip flopped on a mutual agreement (ie. public financing).  In fact, McCain chose to act in an upstanding (although naive and unwise) manner by choosing not to attack Soetoro on the birth certificate issue.

Also, I am not aware of McCain having supported any significantly controversial positions prior to the election, except perhaps one: his support for legislation granting illegal aliens what amounted to amnesty.  Such a position was very atypical of a Republican.  However, I wouldn't think that his position would have hurt him with Democrats choosing between Soetoro and McCain, since Democrats tend to agree with McCain's position, and it's reasonable to believe that Soetoro would've supported the position as well.  In fact, you would think that if voters had to choose between McCain and Soetoro based simply on the immigration issue, you would think they would choose McCain simply because he was willing to take the hard path by resisting fellow Republicans!

There is another reason to believe that voters didn't believe Soetoro was the lesser of two evils:  You rarely heard people make comments that suggested they were begrudgingly voting for Soetoro.  In fact, the opposite occurred.  The electorate was energized, there was a huge turnout of voters (the most since the 1960s), and tears of happiness flowed from the eyes of many cult-like Soetoro voters on election night.

Is it possible that some voters chose Soetoro over McCain due to the belief that Soetoro would handle the economy better than McCain would?  Yes, that's very likely.  But again, irrational.

First, voters often boot out the party that was in power when economic troubles occurred.   However, that's likely not a rational response, for two reasons:  1) The economic troubles could've still occurred if the incumbents weren't in power, and in fact the troubles may have been worse if the incumbents weren't in power; 2) Voters should aim to determine which party would do the better job going forward, regardless of the past (although one could weakly argue that it's worthwhile to punish a party that governs poorly, regardless of the future outlook).

Also, Soetoro had revealed very few details about what he planned to do to revive the economy.  He was always very vague, talking about "hope" and "change", charismatically like a cult leader.  One idea he floated was the idea of his vetoing legislation if it included pork barrel spending.  But of course, it wouldn't have been rational for voters to believe Soetoro given his troubling history of flip flops.

Many voters likely voted for Soetoro simply because their investment portfolio had been devastated under the watch of Bush.   In fact, I remember polls showing that something like two thirds of wealthy investors chose to support Soetoro.

True, there are quite a few reasons to believe that the Republican Bush and the SEC were very corrupt when it came to assisting with theft of the middle class investment community.  However, I see no reason for voters to have believed that the situation would be better under Soetoro than McCain.   What about the fact that Soetoro was a Democrat, not part of Bush's party?  Well, the stock market crash in 2000 occurred under the watch of a Democrat, Clinton, and there were donor finance scandals that surrounded Clinton and Al Gore.  And of course, there was no reason to believe that Soetoro would improve the situation because he was a good guy, because the sixteen factors above are very suggestive that he is not a good guy.

Is it possible that voters believed that Soetoro truly believed (and intended to enact) his original positions, and flip flopped only in order to win the election?  Yes, that's possible.  But, for many reasons, that doesn't make it rational to vote for him, given the very illogical fiscal policies associated with his extreme liberalism and given his suspected anti-Americanism and/or unpatriotic actions.

So my conclusion is that Americans were very irrational.  There were huge amounts of evidence suggesting that Soetoro was a liar, a crook, and probably not a good person.  But I don't believe that most Americans who voted for him are also crooks, or evil (although I do believe that evil people were probably more likely to vote for Soetoro than McCain).  I believe many simply got duped by him, and by their own emotions and desires, and by their inability to be logical.  Now, the media certainly aided in voters being duped, because they downplayed the circumstances surrounding Soetoro.  However, the stories were out there.  They weren't being buried, just downplayed.  Any reader of a newspaper would have been easily able to locate many stories.

So what does this mean? Are American voters somehow more gullible than other foreign voters?  Perhaps, but I'm not sure that any difference, if it exists at all, is as large as you may think.

Think about Germany in the 1930s.  Germans elected Hitler, even though Hitler had already published "Mein Kampf" prior to the election.  Now, I haven't read "Main Kampf", so I can't comment on it with authority, but the document's reputation (along with a cursory review of the anti-Semitism outlined in the book) is such that you'd think it would've caused alarm in the mind of many voters. Yet they voted for Hitler.

The troubling thing is this:  over seventy years after Hitler's election, humanity has fallen prey to the same circumstances.  They chose to ignore disturbing evidence and elect an illogical liar and crook.

Should people who voted for Soetoro ever be allowed to vote again?  Probably not.  I think that's obvious!

Some people might argue that it's unfair to prevent people from voting.  Well, even if that was the case, remember that only those voting for Soetoro would be the ones being treated unfairly.  I would argue that it's even more unfair to allow the fools to vote and thereby harm an even greater number of people: society as a whole!

You do not want to allow fools to be voting and influencing the future of society at large.  These people may be rational when it comes to everyday life, but they appear to have been complete fools when it came to voting.  But that's another topic.

In Part Three of "Reader Request: Why Did Voters Change Their Preferences from 2006 to 2010", I will examine the 2010 midterm elections, and the belated revolt of the people against Obama.
In Part 4 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I outlined points 7) to 11), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.

In Part 5 below, I outline points 12) to 16), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.

12)Soetoro's refusal to wear an American flag lapel

Not only did Soetoro refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin, he actually admitted the omission was done purposely:

"'I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest,' the Democratic presidential candidate told the reporter Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa. 'Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.'

Obama touched upon the exchange again Wednesday at a speech in Independence, Iowa.

'I haven't worn that pin in probably a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing the lapel pin but not acting very patriotic,' he said. 'My attitude is that I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on you lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those ones who serve.'"

That logic is so bizarre, how could it not be likely to be representative of a desire by Soetoro to be unpatriotic or anti-American?

It's true that patriotism is better demonstrated by acting patriotically rather than simply wearing the lapel;  but why wouldn't one do both?  Why wouldn't a patriotic person act patriotically and wear the pin? 

How could Soetoro not be unpatriotic, or worse, anti-American?

Now listen, I certainly think that people have the right to be upset with many or most governmental actions conducted by their country.  I am certainly disturbed by many actions the US government has engaged in over the years.

But if that's the case in Soetoro's situation, why would he act unpatriotic?  Does that mean that he doesn't like his own country, and wouldn't want to improve it?  Wouldn't he want to improve the country?

If he does want to improve it, is it wise to act unpatriotic? Exactly whose votes is he aiming to receive? Foreigners from anti-American nations can't vote in the US election, after all!

And if he is disturbed by the USA's actions, is he upset with the government or the people?  The government certainly isn't representative of the people.  Aside from being common sense, one need only look at the public's very low approval ratings of Congress.

If he is upset with the people, then what's the point of being elected?  Why govern people you dislike?  For control?  For payback?  To destroy them? What exactly is Soetoro's agenda?

So Soetoro actually admitted that he acted intentionally when refusing to wear the American flag lapel.  And people actually voted for him!

13) Soetoro's refusal to place his hand over his chest when the National Anthem was sung

While the National Anthem was sung, and while competitors Bill Richardson and Hilary Clinton placed their hand over their chest, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest.

When confronted about this, Soetoro did not deny this!  He claims that he has never refused to sing the National Anthem, but when you read closely you'll notice he never actually denies that he didn't place his hand on his chest!

Of course, it's not realistic to believe that a US Senator did not know that etiquette is for one to place the hand over the chest.  Obviously, he would've seen this transpire dozens of times over his career.

But even if one mistakenly didn't place their hand over their chest, what would one do if later confronted about it?  Would one admit the mistake and be sure to clarify the situation, or would one just be silent about it, implying that it may have been done purposely?  The obvious answer should be clear.

And we know what Soetoro didn't do.  He didn't deny his actions.  At least not in the letter referenced in the article above.

So, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, even though his actions were blatant by comparison with the actions of his competitors (who did place their hands over their chest).  And people actually voted for him!

14) Soetoro's association with the terrorist Bill Ayers

First: who is Bill Ayers? Answer:

"In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group."

According to Wikipedia, Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days" says that "Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." 

It is unclear as to whether Ayers still supported terrorism at the time Soetoro started campaigning for President.  During 2001, Ayers had made comments that could be interpreted as suggesting that he didn't regret the bombings, that he wished more bombs had been set.   However, Ayers said that the comments were taken out of context, and he condemned terrorism in 2008.  Did he repent only as a result of pressure?

Look at this picture of Ayers standing on the American flag. Remind you of anyone? It reminds me of Soetoro's refusal to wear the American flag lapel, his refusal to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, and his wife's unpatriotic comments.

In 2009, Ayers was barred from entering Canada.

So, what is Soetoro's connection to the former terrorist?

Soetoro and Ayers were described as friends with similar political interests.  Soetoro visited the home of Ayers, and both Ayers and Soetoro served on the board of a Chicago foundation.

Wikipedia notes:

"Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board,which Ayers chaired for two years."

"The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library. One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle."

So, they knew each other at least fairly well, and saw each other at least fairly often.  Was their friendship very strong?  Did they both support terrorism? That is not clear.

Perhaps one should ask Soetoro himself what their relationship was.

When it was exposed that Soetoro attended the function at Ayers' home, Soetoro's chief strategist, Axelrod said

"Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history."

Can you believe that?!  That is not very believable at all. How could an up and comer not know the terrorist history of a well known person in the neighborhood?

Also in support of my points, note these points:

1) In Bill Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent", Ayers mentions the prominent people that live in his neighborhood, and mentions "writer Barack Obama." (Regardless of the timeline, it suggests that Ayers may have known Obama personally at one point).

2)  Soetoro, as state Senator, reviewed Ayers' book and provided a positive review.

It is very clear they knew of each other.

During a debate, Soetoro was asked about his relationship with Ayers. He said:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. 

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George."

Now, I don't know what your impression is, but my impression is that that doesn't exactly sound like a stinging rebuke of Bill Ayers, even with the inclusion of the word "detestable". 

Worse, Soetoro fails to address the fact that Soetoro's choice to 1) attend a function at the home of a terrorist, 2) sit on the board with a terrorist and 3) attend panel discussions with a terrorist are all events that could easily, perhaps likely, reflect on Soetoro and his values.  Soetoro made these choices as an adult, not as an eight year old.

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to associate with a former terrorist many times over the years.  And people actually voted for him! 

15) Soetoro's association with anti-American Reverend Wright

Reverend Wright was the Pastor at the church that Soetoro attended for decades. He said

"blacks should not sing 'God Bless America'" but rather "'God damn America.'"

Here is some text from Wright's sermons:

'We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans..."

State terrorism against Palestinians? First, it's arguable as to who should be able to live in Israel proper.  But we do know that Israel's occupation of some added territories (such as the West Bank) occurred after Israel was attacked by several Arab countries.  We do know that terrorist attacks by "Palestinians" in Israel far outnumber terrorist attacks by Israelis in the territories.  And we do know that people of "Palestinian" descent can live and vote in Israel, unlike most, if not all, of the Arab world.

And Wright actually believes that the USA supported state terrorism against the Palestinians? Where and when and how?

Here are more comments:

"'The government gives them the drugs...'"

“'Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary ain't never been called a n——-.'” 

“'They will not only attack you if you try to point out what’s happening in white America. U.S. of KKK A.'”

"'We started the AIDS virus...'"

What was Soetoro's response to the expose of his relationship with Wright?

During March 2008, Soetoro said:

"'The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.'"

Now, Soetoro named his book after the first sermon of Wright ("The Audacity of Hope"); Wright wedded Soetoro and his wife, and baptized his children.  Also, Soetoro donated $22,500 to Wright's church.  Is it reasonable to believe that Soetoro would be unaware of Wright's hostile views? Of course not.

During his famous speech in March 2008, Soetoro defended the man but not his words, claiming:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

"Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way."

Now, since Soetoro was talking about the possibility of switching churches during the past, it's clear the context is the past.  But notice that Soetoro strongly implies that he actually did hear the disturbing sermons of Wright (during the past)!

This is implied by the comment: "...if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets..."  This implies that he knew of the sermons, but knew of other information as well.  He goes on to imply that he overlooked those sermons as a result of other aspects of Wright's personality!

This is very important, of course, because Soetoro had previously denied that he had been aware of Wright's disturbing comments!  This is the very first time that I've ever seen this gaffe exposed!

Soetoro said:

"Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."

Is that believable?  Not likely.

Later in 2008, during a debate, Soetoro said:

"Well, let me just respond to two things. Absolutely, many of these remarks were objectionable. I've already said that I didn't hear them because I wasn't in church that day. I didn't learn about those statements until much later. But...


But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him: 'You can get kind of rough in sermons. So, what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.' I'm quoting the reverend.

But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation? And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?"

If there was any doubt, it seems that Soetoro was aware of the Reverend's comments after all.

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to associate with a Pastor who made many disturbing, anti-American comments.  And people actually voted for him! 

16) Soetoro's association with Michelle Obama

During the 2008 Democratic nomination process,  Michelle Obama said:

"'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

Now, is it believable that Soetoro would've been unaware of her unpatriotic views prior to marrying her?

No, it's not very believable.  Now, Michelle Obama has a right to be unhappy about things her country has done.  The problem is this:  I find that people who are verbally unpatriotic also tend to be people who are dangerously illogical left-wing radicals.  Conversely, I find that people who are logical (and are unhappy with many aspects of their country) tend to be verbally patriotic.

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to marry a woman who may have been an unpatriotic, radical anti-American woman.  And people actually voted for him! 

In Part 6 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will conclude with an analysis of the voter mindset during the 2008 election process.
In Part 3 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I outlined points 1) to 6), the first six troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.

In Part 4 below, I outline points 7) to 11), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election

7) Soetoro's dubious comments regarding the separation of church and state

During the Bush years, federal grants given to religious organizations could be used by religious organizations to further their objectives.  The funds could be used discriminately to advance religious causes.  Bush's position was certainly a position that would please more people among the right than among the left.

During July 2007, Soetoro said this about the separation of church and state:

"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves."

In July 2008, Soetoro suddenly changed his position, announcing plans to actually expand Bush's programs:

"Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith."

"'The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone,' Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. 'We need all hands on deck.'"

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 
To many left wing voters, the separation of church and state is extremely important.  Yet people actually voted for Soetoro!

8) Soetoro's dubious logic regarding his 2001 vote against the death penalty for gang related activity

Chicago had a very serious problem with gang related murders.  In 2001, as a State Senator, Soetoro voted against a new law meant to crack down on gang activity.

Although some of Soetoro's reasoning may be sound, one aspect is very tro:

"'There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color,' he said. 'I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.'"

Can you believe that?!  One interpretation of what he said is that he thinks it's wrong to target gangs simply because their membership includes more blacks and Hispanics than it does whites!

So is a main determinant in Soetoro's eyes not whether a crime is committed, but the ethnic background of the person committing the crime? 

There are other flaws with his logic. Why doesn't he apply similar logic when considering the benefits of the law?

If Soetoro really was concerned with the plight of blacks and Hispanics, wouldn't action against black and Hispanic gang members, even if the action seemed unfairly discriminatory towards them, benefit the black and Hispanic community as a whole much more than it would benefit the white community?  Aren't victims of gang activity much more likely to be black or Hispanic?  Wouldn't blacks and Hispanics overall benefit from implementation of the law he voted against?  (I'm not suggesting that he should have voted for the law if he truly felt that the law was discriminatory...however, does it seem to you like Soetoro actually worries about the ethics of a decision?)

This was back in 2001.  In 2008, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of post-racial change! And people actually voted for him!

9) Soetoro's cold answer and indifference regarding a question about human life 

During August 2008, Soetoro was asked at what point a baby should receive human rights. He answered by stating that an answer to that question was "above my pay grade."

As sweetness-light.com correctly mentions, "If it is above his pay grade to answer questions about abortion, then where does he get off voting on the issue — as he has in the Illinois legislature?"

Addressing the cold personality of Obama, they continue by saying: "Mr. Obama’s answers are so generic he sounds like one of those computers that has been programmed to sound like a human being."

During September 2008, Soetoro admitted the problem with his attiitude, and clarified by saying:

"'It's a pretty tough question,' he continued. 'And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.'"

Theological?  How is the question theological?  It's about how one defines things and about costs versus benefits! Perhaps Soetoro could use a primer, beginning with my own article on the subject.

Soetoro's indifference toward human life seems to be very disturbing. And people actually voted for him! 

10) Soetoro's birth certificate controversy prior to the election

Philip J. Berg  is a Democrat who "is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania."

During August 2008, Berg sued Soetoro, claiming that Soetoro is a fraud who was not eligible to be US President.  Such a lawsuit (especially coming from a Democrat), as well as the evidence in support of the plaintiff, should've been front page news and been scrutinized heavily!

Instead, the mainstream media buried one of the most important stories in history!

Shockingly, Soetoro refused to respond to the lawsuit by the December deadline! (Although that deadline was after the November election date).

Remember, at this very same time, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  Although the mainstream media was attempting to bury the story about the lawsuit, many people using the internet were aware of it, and larger numbers of people had by then been aware of the birth certificate controversy for many months.  And yet people actually voted for him! 

11) Soetoro's flip flop regarding the embargo of Cuba

During this video presentation, presumably from 2004, Soetoro says:

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo of Cuba..."

But then in August 2007, now speaking before Cuban-Americans, Soetoro said:

"the embargo was 'an important inducement for change' which he would not automatically remove as president."

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  And yet people actually voted for him!  

In Part 5 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will outline points 12) to 16), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
In Part 2 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I investigated the circumstances during the prelude to Soetoro's 2008 election.

In Part 3 below, I will outline points 1) to 6), the first six troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.


Soetoro has lied about many, many things.  After reading the list below, it should be obvious to you that his words are often worthless.

Why does he lie so often? Well, perhaps he simply says whatever lies he needs to in order to get elected.  It's that simple.

If his lies are so successful that he develops a cult-like following of tear shedding individuals (perhaps "individual" isn't the best word to use to describe someone who ignores rationality and supports Soetoro), even better.

If you investigate the timing of his flip flops on the many issues I will list below, you will notice that he changed many of his positions right after he beat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination, as soon as his opponent became John McCain.

Why would his position suddenly change? Well, in order to beat Hilary, since Democrats were the ones nominating him, he wanted to pretend to support the most popular Democratic positions. The more liberal ones.  Once his opponent became McCain, the entire electorate were now the ones voting, and hence Soetoro simply pretended to support what he needed to in order to become more palatable.

Of course, the public doesn't know what Soetoro really believes.

So, back to the list.  Where to start? There are so many troubling actions committed by Barry Soetoro pre-election.  I will list them below in no particular order.

1)Pretending to be against NAFTA and for the middle class

In February 2008, he railed against NAFTA and its effect on US unemployment and the outsourcing of American jobs.

Also in February 2008, it was reported that aides to Soetoro privately assured Canadians that Soetoro actually had no intention of ending NAFTA!

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  And people actually voted for him! 

2) Soetoro's 2001-2002 Illinois Senate votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act

There are times when an abortion fails and the baby is born alive.  A nurse, Jill Stanek, had complained that such babies weren't being treated humanely...that people were just letting the babies lay there for hours to die in soiled linen.

As a result, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced.  At the federal level, it was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate (which is of course an extremely unusual event in Congress).

However, Soetoro (who wasn't a member of the federal Senate at that time) actually voted against the Illinois State version of the bill!  If you read the transcripts of the debate (audio here), it appears that Soetoro was less concerned with assisting a helpless child than he was concerned with the rights of the mother and the potential liabilities of the doctor:

"...one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation".

"...I suspectand my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

"...it's important to understand that this issue is ultimately about abortion and not live births."

Shouldn't Soetoro's cold stance immediately raise red flags?

What does one's stance on abortion have to do with the Act? Once a birth occurs following a failed abortion, the birth has already occurred! How much does abortion have to do with it at that point?

And Soetoro coldly discusses "burdens" and "liabilities"...what about appearing to treat the child/fetus humanely? This is outrageous!

Worse, Soetoro later lied about his position on the issue (suggesting that even he knew that his actions seemed cruel):

"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

So, Soetoro claimed that he only voted against the state Act because it lacked a provision that the federal Act contained. 

When it was shown that Soetoro lied, that the state act indeed did include the federal provision, Soetoro's campaign admitted their lie:

"His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."

3) Soetoro was ranked by the National Journal as 2007's most liberal of all 100 Senators

Here is the ranking. For Soetoro to be the most liberal of all 100 Senators, that means, to put it nicely, he is not a moderate.  It means he's in the minority, the extremes of the bell curve (although to be fair, having a minority position on something hardly necessarily means that the person is an extremist.  Some of my own positions are often not held by the majority; at least until others become aware of my logic behind them.  Unfortunately for Soetoro, however, most liberal policies are illogical.  Much of my site exposes this).

Now, given that only about 20% of Americans identify as liberal, and given that even fewer people would identify as being among the most liberal, it seems reasonable that a very small minority of Americans, perhaps 5%, might identify with Soetoro's brand of liberalism.

So, perhaps 5% of Americans share Soetoro's views, yet about 50% of voters voted for him? Somehow he got elected! Did he dupe everyone? Or did people dupe themselves?

4) Soetoro's flip flop regarding public financing

If a candidate accepts public financing, it means that he/she will receive federal money to be used for the election campaign.  But acceptance also means that there will be a fund-raising limit put on how much money he/she can receive from the private sector.

During an interview, Soetoro said that he would accept public financing if McCain did.  One reason given was Soetoro's desire to limit the amounts of money McCain would raise from private sources.

In June 2008, Soetoro suddenly flip flopped again, stating that he would not accept public financing, even though McCain kept his word and agreed to accept public financing!

If that wasn't bad enough, Soetoro bizarrely put a spin on the story by claiming that since his website was accessible by the public, and since he was accepting donations on his website he was, in effect, accepting a parallel type of public financing!

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!

5) Soetoro's flip flop regarding telecom immunity

Under Bush, telecommunication companies assisted the Administration in their wiretapping efforts.

There was talk of passing a new law that would grant the companies immunity from legal action resulting from their actions.

In October 2007, Soetoro spokesman Bil Burton said:

"'To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.'"

In mid-2008, Soetoro suddenly decided to support legislation granting legal immunity to the telecoms!

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!

6) Soetoro's flip flop regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq

In January 2007, Soetoro offered legislation that set a deadline for all troops to be pulled out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. That date was before the election even occurred!

In September 2007,  Soetoro then suddenly refused to pledge that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. So, Soetoro changed his stance from being out of Iraq in 2008 to potentially being out of Iraq sometime after 2013! Five plus years is not a subtle change.

In July 2008,  Soetoro again flip flopped and said that on his very first day in office he would begin the process ensuring that all troops would be out of Iraq within sixteen months of his taking office.

Embarrassingly for him (is "embarrassing" a strong enough word?!), in July 2008, Soetoro then began to waffle on his position, saying that he could "refine" the troop withdrawal plan.  Imagine that! Did he think so little of the mental capacity and the memory of the American people that he didn't even bother to wait longer than a few weeks before changing his position yet again?

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 
And remember that Bush's position on the war in Iraq was one of the main reasons for Bush's unpopularity! And even though Soetoro flip flopped on an issue of such importance to the electorate, people actually voted for him! 

In Part 4 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will outline points 7) to 11), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
In Part 1 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I reviewed the evidence in an attempt to determine what the President's legal name is.

In Part 2 below, I will investigate the circumstances during the prelude to the 2008 elections.


In Part One, I established that midterm voters in 2006 opted to vote for Democrats in order to show their displeasure with Congress and Bush's policies, particularly the Iraq war.

But the 2006 midterm elections seemed to be only a partial victory for voters.  They forced the Republicans out of power, but Bush himself was still in power.

After 2008, Bush would be gone.  He couldn't run again. Voters could look for a fresh start.  Would they vote Republican or Democrat? Well, Congressional approval ratings had dipped yet again to record lows in 2008. But why? Wasn't the Iraq war starting to improve? Yes, but people still wanted to see the end of the five year long war.

And more importantly, the recession was getting worse in the fall of 2008, and the public was becoming more aware that government regulators were simply allowing criminal banks and hedge funds to destroy the stock market for profit.  How could the public not become more aware?  Their portfolios were being devastated, and after searching for answers they eventually found them online.

In 2006 and 2007, thousands of comments flooded the SEC website when the SEC allowed public comment on proposed changes to a rule named "Reg SHO". (Anger over criminal theft in the financial world had started to become widespread in 2005, pushing the SEC to publish the daily Reg SHO list of stocks.  The list published the names of stocks that had been so victimized by counterfeiting that high percentages of their stock's total existing float were counterfeit).  In 2006 and 2007, the SEC had been proposing changes to Reg SHO.

Look at the public anger out there in 2007:

The above comments are tame compared to many other frothing, swearing, threatening comments made by the public.

So, there was a huge amount of public anger, at least among the investing community, against Bush and government by the time the 2008 elections occurred (and rightly so!)  One could expect to see the public become very receptive toward a candidate who offered change from the status quo.  Soetoro was the candidate that did offer that change; he constantly used the words "hope" and "change"! Perfect timing!

I argue that many people simply became so swept up with the charisma of Soetoro, so swept up with the idea of genuine governmental change, so swept up with the idea of electing a black man, that they voted for Soetoro.

But along the way, people became disturbingly irrational.  VERY disturbingly.  I am going to now provide a list of circumstances surrounding Soetoro prior to his election.  Read the list, and then try to figure out how it was that any rational person could even consider voting for Soetoro:

In Part 3 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will outline points 1) to 6), six troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
In this series of articles, I will refer to Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro.

You may be wondering why I've chosen to reference the name Barry Soetoro and not Barack Obama.  Simple.  I found more credible evidence (ie. actual documentation) that references the name Barry Soetoro rather than Barack Obama. Yes, really!

Now, how did this bizarre situation occur? How could there be so little existing evidence in support of such basic, non-controversial information: one's legal name?

Well, Soetoro has covered up the evidence!  So we simply don't know what his legal name is!

On January 21, 2009, amid the worst recession since the 1930s, was Soetoro in a rush to help the desperate economy?

Apparently not. On his first day in office, he acted to ensure that he could make it illegal for anyone to release particular documents about his life. Yes, really!

Here's the executive order he signed, order 13489. It states in part:

"If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order."

In other words, the President now has the power to tell the Archivist which Presidential records to disclose to the public, and which to censor.  But remember, he needs to invoke executive privilege in order to censor his documents.  What's the reason that he would even enjoy this executive privilege in the first place? After all, didn't he campaign on transparency?

"(g) A ‘substantial question of executive privilege' exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch."

By itself, that makes sense. You wouldn't want to release documents that would harm national security, right?

But what documents has Soetoro apparently actually ordered the Archivist to censor? The following documents:

"Kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records".

Yes, you read that right. If the documents were indeed censored according to the executive order (and not censored by other means), he's censoring the basic information from his life history on the grounds that their disclosure "might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch"!

How absurd is that? That alone, I would think, is a crime, to pretend that the release of a document showing school grades would impair national security or the law enforcement process!  Actually, the opposite could occur as a result of their release...their release could actually aid the law enforcement process if they aided in enforcement of the Constitution, which demands that a President be born in America! 

So, what are the most recent credible documents, if any available exist, that would shed light on what Soetoro's legal name is?  The most recent that I'm aware of is a document provided by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta Indonesia, where Soetoro apparently attended school as a child (apparently Soetoro could not censor this document, since it came from Indonesia, not the USA).

The document is the form that enrolled him in the school.  It says that his name is "Barry Soetoro", his religion is "Islam" and his nationality "Indonesian" (Yes, I hear the snickers now.  Soetoro apparently lied about his religion too!)

Is it possible Soetoro lied on the school enrollment forms?  Well, note that the school he enrolled in was actually a Catholic school...hence, if Soetoro was actually a Christian (as he now claims), there would've been little incentive for him to lie about his religion on his school forms, because you'd think he would've fit in at a Catholic school better if he was Christian rather than Muslim (although you could argue there might be long term benefits of appearing to be Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country).

If he was actually an American citizen, I doubt it would've been possible for him to get away with lying about his nationality.  The forms state that he was an Indonesian citizen, and one would think that it would be routine for a school to verify such information prior to enrolling a child.

It would make sense for his name to be Soetoro.  After all, he lived in Indonesia with his step-father Lolo Soetoro, and hence he may have been adopted by Soetoro and legally taken his name.

But we can't verify what Soetoro's legal name is, to this day!  He's censored all of the documents. What a fraud!

So, I don't know what his legal name is.  Even lawsuits against him don't know what name to use on the court documents, so they variably use Barry Soetoro and Barack Obama!

The most recent credible evidence I've been able to locate uses the name Barry Soetoro, so I will use that name below, where I analyse the troubling 2008 election of Soetoro.

In Part 2 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will investigate the circumstances during the prelude to the 2008 elections.