Is Barack Obama The Manchurian Candidate?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel." — Ayn Rand

The 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate is a 1962 American Cold War political thriller film starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh and Angela Lansbury. The picture was directed by John Frankenheimer from an adaptation by George Axelrod of Richard Condon's 1959 novel.

The central concept of the film is that the son of a prominent, right-wing political family has been brainwashed as an unwitting assassin for an international Communist conspiracy. The Manchurian Candidate was nationally released on Wednesday, October 24, 1962, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The plot is as follows:

During the Korean War, the Soviets capture an American platoon and take them to Manchuria in Communist China. After the war, the soldiers return to the United States, and Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is credited with saving their lives in combat. Upon the recommendation of the platoon's commander, Captain Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra), Shaw is awarded the Medal of Honor for his supposed actions. In addition, when asked to describe him, Marco and the other soldiers automatically respond, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." Deep down, however, they know that Shaw is a cold, sad, unsociable loner, Marco describing him as "not hard to like. He's impossible to like!".

Marco — who has since been promoted to Major — suffers from a recurring nightmare in which a hypnotized Shaw kills two fellow soldiers before the assembled military brass of communist nations, during a practical demonstration of a brainwashing technique. Marco wants to investigate, but receives no support from Army Intelligence as he has no proof. However, Marco learns that another soldier from the platoon, Allen Melvin (James Edwards), has had the same nightmare. When Melvin and Marco separately identify some of the men in the dream as leading figures in communist governments, Army Intelligence agrees to help Marco investigate.

Meanwhile, Shaw's mother, Mrs. Eleanor Iselin (Angela Lansbury), drives the political career of her husband, Senator John Yerkes Iselin (James Gregory), a bombastic McCarthy-like demagogue who is dismissed by most people as a fool. Senator Iselin's political stature is established when he claims that an undetermined number of communists work within the Defense Department. However, unknown to Raymond, Mrs. Iselin is actually a Communist agent with a plan intended to secure the presidency under communist influence.

Mrs. Iselin is the American "operator" responsible for controlling Raymond, who was conditioned in Manchuria to be an unwitting assassin whose actions are triggered by a Queen of Diamonds playing card. When he sees it, he will obey the next suggestion or order given to him by anyone. When given instructions to kill selected targets, he must also kill any witnesses and never remember his actions, making him the perfect assassin. It is revealed that Shaw's heroic action was a false memory implanted in the platoon by the communists in Manchuria, and that they were covertly returned to the American lines when their conditioning was completed; the actions for which Shaw was awarded his Medal of Honor never took place.

Raymond briefly finds happiness when he rekindles a youthful romance with Jocelyn Jordan (Leslie Parrish), the daughter of Senator Thomas Jordan (John McGiver), one of his stepfather's political rivals. Raymond had previously courted Jocelyn in order to get at his parents in a Romeo and Juliet-style romance, but they then genuinely fell in love, both she and her father being the nearest thing Raymond has ever had to having friends. Mrs. Iselin broke up the relationship for obvious political reasons, but now facilitates the couple's reunion as part of her scheme to garner the support of Senator Jordan for her husband's own sudden vice presidential bid.

Jocelyn, wearing a Queen of Diamonds costume outfit, inadvertently hypnotizes Raymond at a costume party thrown by the Iselins and the couple elopes. Although pleased with the match, Senator Jordan makes it clear to Mrs. Iselin that he will move for her husband's impeachment if he makes any attempt to seek the vice-presidential nomination. Raymond's conditioning is then triggered by his mother and he is sent to assassinate Jordan. Jocelyn happens upon the scene and is also shot dead as a witness to the event. Raymond has no knowledge of his actions and is genuinely grief-stricken when he learns of the murders.

In the course of Marco's investigation, he discovers the role of the Queen of Diamonds card in putting Raymond into the hypnotic state for his assignments. Marco meets Raymond and, using a deck composed entirely of such cards, gets the full story and orders Raymond to break the links between the card and obeying any further subsequent orders. Unaware of this, Mrs. Iselin primes her son to assassinate their party's presidential candidate at the nomination convention so that Senator Iselin, as the vice-presidential candidate, will become the presidential candidate by default and give an inflammatory anti-Communist speech (written by the Communists themselves). This will cause mass hysteria that will get Iselin, "the Manchurian candidate", elected and justify emergency powers that, in Mrs. Iselin's words, "will make martial law seem like anarchy".

In a cynically moving scene, Mrs. Iselin asserts that she did not know that it was her son who was to be selected by the Communists, who apparently chose him to be the assassin because they believed it would solidify their own hold and control over her. Furious, she vows that once in power she will "grind them into the dirt".

Marco's attempt to free Raymond appears to have failed. Raymond enters the convention hall disguised as a Catholic priest and takes up a position to carry out the assassination as he was instructed, using a rifle with a scope. Marco and his supervisor, Colonel Milt (Douglas Henderson), arrive at the convention to stop him. As the Presidential nominee (Robert Riordan) makes his speech, Raymond instead takes his revenge and saves the country by shooting his stepfather and mother dead. He then commits suicide in front of Marco while wearing his Medal of Honor.

I have seen this film at least five times and own the DVD version. I consider it as one of the best political thrillers of the genre and a good example of how Hollywood used to make films with a punch.

Of course in 2004 Hollywood attempted to remake the film by turning Condon's 1959 novel upside down and showing global corporations as the villains. The new plot goes something like this:

Major Bennett "Ben" Marco (Denzel Washington) is a war veteran who begins to doubt what is commonly known about his famous Army unit. During Operation Desert Storm, Sergeant First Class Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) supposedly rescued all but two members in his unit, of which Marco was the commanding officer. This made Shaw a war hero, gained him the Medal of Honor, and launched him into a career in politics. One of Marco's former NCOs, Corporal Al Melvin (Jeffrey Wright), contacts him and says that he has had some 'dreams', and mentions himself, Marco, and Shaw inside a big room, with confusing memories of the lost army unit. He is clearly deranged, but he shows Major Marco some images he has drawn from the dreams, including one of a tattooed woman.

The members begin to come together in a dystopian near-future America defined by xenophobia, defacto martial law, environmental degradation, and increasing corporate control. Shaw, now a United States Congressman, becomes his party's candidate for Vice-President. He is an unexpected candidate, as Connecticut Senator Tom Jordan (Jon Voight) was the leading choice for some time. Jordan is pushed aside by Shaw's mother, Virginia Senator Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep), who convinces the party leaders into nominating her son. An obvious rivalry exists between Eleanor Shaw and Tom Jordan, partly due to a past relationship between Raymond Shaw and Jordan's daughter Jocelyn (Vera Farmiga). That evening, Marco has a nightmare in which he is trapped in a large room, with tattooed women placing large television sets in front of the soldiers, and repeatedly saying, "Raymond Shaw is probably the kindest, bravest, warmest, most selfless human being I've ever known." Meanwhile, Melvin desperately pleads for Marco to help him, but Marco cannot, as he is incapacitated by his surgery, chemical infusion, and hypnotism.

After Shaw is nominated, Marco begins investigating what really happened during the war. He finds an implant inside of his back, and, having it analyzed, realizes that it is a nano-technological experiment dating from the Gulf War, connected with Manchurian Global, an international weapons manufacturer with major political connections, including former prime ministers, trust-fund terrorists, ayatollahs, and the Shaw family. Marco also finds a newspaper clipping with a person in a photograph whom he recognizes as a scientist from his nightmares. Looking him up, he finds that his name is Atticus Noyle (an anagram of Dr. Yen Lo, an evil Chinese brainwasher from the original 1962 film), a genetic engineer and soldier of fortune, who used to work for Manchurian global, on a nanotechnology experiment.

Marco shows this to Tom Jordan, who, although he doesn't entirely believe the story, does realize that there is a strong possibility that Raymond Shaw was brainwashed, and confronts the Shaws about this. When he suggests that Raymond bow out gracefully from the campaign, Eleanor Shaw pretends to think that this is an idiotic ruse to eliminate competition. Taking matters into her own hands in fear and desperation as the conspiracy is hours away from being revealed, she 'activates' her son. In a trance-like state, under his mother's orders, Raymond Shaw murders Tom Jordan and his daughter.

Eleanor Shaw is furious at Manchurian Global because they gave her their word that the brainwashing conspiracy could never have been found out, and while it's true that she was trusted with their technology, they were trusted with her son. As she becomes more and more controlling, it is soon revealed that the Vice-Presidential spot is not what she has in mind for her son, but the presidency. On election night, the newly elected president will be assassinated, and the planned assassin of Shaw's running mate is none other than Marco himself, who was also brainwashed in the war. With the help of the FBI, Marco arranges a private meeting with Shaw in a school where he was to cast his vote. Marco tries once again to convince Shaw of what is happening to him and that there is a deeper link between them that Manchurian technology has not managed to obliterate. Shaw seems to agree, and gives Marco his Medal of Honor, which he says he does not deserve. Marco takes it, and Shaw receives a phone call from his mother, who wants to talk to Marco. Marco answers it, and is soon "activated" by her.

After Eleanor Shaw activates her son, he becomes helpless and weak. The latent ambiguity of their relationship is revealed when Eleanor washes down her son, kissing him repeatedly on the lips and stroking the back of his neck. They then get ready to go to the election party.

Shaw and Marco begin to regain a conscious state even while under Manchurian Global's control. At the election night celebration party, the newly elected Shaw and Major Marco realize what must be done. Shaw leads his mother onto the stage with him, moving them into the spot where the President should be and blocking Marco's shot. Marco then fires one shot, killing both of them as they hug. Just before Marco can kill himself (which had been part of Eleanor Shaw's plan), FBI Agent Eugenie "Rosie" Rose (Kimberly Elise) stops him by shooting him in the shoulder. The FBI seemingly covers up Marco's involvement, framing a Manchurian Global conspirator with the shooting. In the last scene, Rosie takes Marco to the compound he was brainwashed in, apparently in conjunction with the FBI investigation. Marco realizes what has happened, and lets the sea take away a picture of the "lost platoon" along with Shaw's Medal of Honor.

If you have never seen the original version of the film you might enjoy the 2004 remake. I did not, as I kept thinking back to Condon's novel. Remakes always leave me with a bad taste, as the film-makers in an attempt to draw in a new audience always change the plot and the original story. This is also true of other films based on political thriller novels like Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger and The Sum of All Fears where the bad guys were changed from Arab terrorist to a neo-Nazi group for reasons of political correctness after 9/11.

Now we move on to the life story of Barack Obama. The latest hubbub revolving around Barack Obama is one concerning his claim of birth. According to an article in the London Telegraph Obama’s first publisher issued a short bio to go on the bust jacket promoting his first book that he was born in Kenya. Tim Stanley writing in the Telegraph reports:

“Whatever you think of Breitbart.com’s punishing vetting process, it has exposed just how little work the mainstream media did in investigating candidate Obama back in 2008. Not all of Team Breitbart’s revelations have been election-deciders, but they have often been stuff that a simple Google would have uncovered. If they revealed tomorrow that he’d had his own cross-dressing-themed sitcom on primetime TV in the 1980s, I wouldn’t be surprised.

The latest find is a fascinating inversion of the birther conspiracy. Breitbart.com has discovered that in 1991 Barack Obama’s literary agent (who also represented New Kids on the Block) published a booklet that included a biography of the future President. The audience was “business colleagues” in the publishing industry and it was designed to promote Obama’s anticipated first book (later abandoned) called Journeys in Black and White. Here’s how it describes the author’s origins.

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.

The key phrase here is “was born in Kenya" – and this bio line was apparently being used as late as 2007.

Today, the President has satisfied all right-minded folk that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Breitbart.com itself has always rejected the absurd cult of birtherism. In fact, this story is really the opposite of birtherism – Breitbart infers that in the past Obama encouraged people to think that he was born abroad in order to establish an identity as an authentic, exotic voice in the debate on racial politics.

Obama’s old literary agent has issued a terse statement to the effect that the wording was all her fault and she never consulted her client. If that’s true, she’s a bad agent. A different agent, quoted by Breitbart.com, disagrees. He told the website “that while ‘almost nobody’ wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom ‘the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,’ were ‘probably’ approached to approve the text as presented.”

If we accept that Obama didn’t provide the biography, it would seem highly unlikely that he didn’t get a chance to vet it. Accepting that he didn’t do that either, it’s incredibly strange that the literary agent approached by Breitbart.com does not remember Obama calling the agency to register a complaint and make a correction. My mother spent a lot of her childhood in Grenada. If my literary agent told people I was born in the Caribbean, I’d at least pick up the phone to set the record straight.”

Now I have had a book published and before it went to print I reviewed my biography very carefully to insure its accuracy and that it conformed to what I wanted to say about myself. So either Obama reviewed his bio and found it accurate or he was willing to go forward with a bold-faced lie to sell his book.

Whether Obama was born in Kenya is not the point of my concern. The preponderance of evidence backs up his claim that he was born in Hawaii. My concern focuses on who is the real Barack Obama. Here is what we know about Barack Obama. He was probably born in Hawaii to an American citizen and his father was a Kenyan exchange student who left for Harvard University shortly after Barack’s birth and eventually returned to Kenya to serve as a minister in the communist government there. His mother then moved to Seattle to attend college and become a left-wing activist. At some point his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, met an Indonesian by the name Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. When Suharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967, all Indonesian students studying abroad were recalled, and the family moved to the Menteng neighborhood of Jakarta. From ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta, including Besuki Public School and St. Francis of Assisi School. He also attended a local Madras where he studied the Quran.

In 1971, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham, and with the aid of a scholarship attended Punahou School, a private college preparatory school, from fifth grade until his graduation from high school in 1979.Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972, remaining there until 1977 when she went back to Indonesia to work as an anthropological field worker. She finally returned to Hawaii in 1994 and lived there for one year before dying of ovarian cancer.

While in Hawaii Obama met Frank Marshal Davis, a known communist, who was one of Obama’s first mentors. Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. In February 1981, he made his first public speech, calling for Occidental to divest from South Africa in response to its policy of apartheid. In mid-1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in Pakistan and India for three weeks. Later in 1981, he transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialty in international relations and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, then at the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Two years after graduating, Obama was hired in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes (where he met the radical priest Michael Pfleger and Rev. Jeremiah Wright) in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago's South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988. He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens. Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute. In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time. He returned to Kenya in August 2006 for a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya.

In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations, which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park – Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation that reformed ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law that increased tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.

Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002. In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority. He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms. Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.

In Obama’s campaign for the United States Senate once again the ugly head of the Chicago machine snake rose to his support. He had no real record to run on and his tenure in the Illinois State Senate was lackluster at best. In 2004, Obama ran for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Despite opposition in the Primary Election from tough challenger Blair Hull, Hull would collapse after pressure from journalists unsealed his divorce files, with Obama taking 54% of the vote. Following his victory, Obama squared off against Republican Jack Ryan, who ultimately had to drop out of the race due to a lawsuit from the Chicago Tribune that forced the unsealing of his divorce records. Alan Keyes was chosen as the new GOP candidate. Keyes had gained much attention as a conservative firebrand in his unsuccessful presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000. A Marylander, Keyes had established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination, the only requirement to run for office. The Chicago Tribune sarcastically greeted Keyes by editorializing: "Mr. Keyes may have noticed a large body of water as he flew into O'Hare. That is called Lake Michigan."

After a campaign in which Keyes called Obama's position on abortion, "the slave-holder's position", accused gays and lesbians of being "selfish hedonists", and claimed that Jesus would not vote for his opponent, Obama won handily in the general election, receiving 70% of the popular vote to Keyes's 27%.

It should be noted here that Anita Dunn, who worked on Barack Obama's campaign and held a White House position, formerly worked on Hull's campaign as a media strategist. Blair Hull was identified as 'Candidate C' in the famous Blagojevich scandal to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat.

Like Ben Marco the first question I have is who financed all of Obama’s education. Columbia University is not inexpensive. All along Obama’s career he seems to have financial angels on his shoulders. Many of these angels are members of the Chicago political machine like Valerie Jarrett an Iranian born socialist. Jarrett along with other Marxists like Van Jones, Carol Browner, Anita Dunn, Tony Rezko, and scores of other fellow travelers are all close advisors to Obama.

Like the character Raymond Shaw Obama has been influenced (brainwashed if you will) by a cadré Marxists and Communists with Valerie Jarrett acting like Obama’s mother figure and the character Eleanor Iselin in the film.

Another question I have pertains to Obama’s grades at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard and what did he write. We know he never published anything while president of the Harvard Law review, but nothing of his college transcripts. Every candidate for president has had his college transcripts made public and the papers they wrote made public including Hillary Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore. Even Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis; “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was made public. Why not Barack Obama?

How many times have you heard from the Obama supporters and his media sycophants how brilliant Barack Obama is? The mantra goes that he is the most brilliant person ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Even his opponents have a hard time challenging this statement. How many times have you heard how likeable Barack Obama is? This is like hearing the phrase; “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." This Obama mantra goes on and on without challenge of his transcripts or grades. Even his tenure as a lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago is somewhat a fraud. He was never a professor and his knowledge of the Constitution and the mind of the framers is suspect.

Obama’s record is full of associations with Marxists and Communists. As a State senator he voted present over 100 times and the only legislation he is known to take a stand on was the Illinois Born Alive Bill, which would have prohibited the killing of a fetus that had survived a failed abortion. He voted against the bill four times.

Throughout his life Barack Obama has done nothing or written anything of importance except his own self-serving autobiography and an ideological treatise on his Marxist beliefs. Even these books are suspect and there are claims they were written by others including his friend and confident the former Weather Underground unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres.

He never managed any large group of people or organization. He never worked for a private for profit firm. He never started a business or hires people or signed the front of a paycheck. He has lived off the largess of others, mainly his Marist angels. He has always been the product of his puppet masters and never had an original thought in his life. He certainly cannot be compared with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, or Lincoln yet he is considered by the media and his sycophantic supporters as the most brilliant person ever to occupy the White House.

He has made it to the top of the political rung with his ability to read a teleprompter with words written by others, his enchanting smile, his ability to talk hood speak, and his Mussolini-like chin tilt. This is what his puppet masters saw in him when they began to prepare him for the presidency. Even to this day his likeable quotient is way above his competency ratings.

Obama will rail against the evil corporations and investment bankers, but will go to these entities for his financial support, which they gladly give with the hope of having influence over him and the policies of the government. This support will come as his managers know how to milk the golden goose of politics for their money. This corporatism is much akin to the Fascism of Mussolini, but his Marxist supporters do not make such fine distinctions when there is money to be had

As Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky wrote in his book Rules for Radicals:

“The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was — P.36-37 or Rules for Radicals.”

Obama’s puppet masters will do anything to get the guns Lenin was talking about. They may be metaphorical guns while the real weapons are the coercive power of the government. This is what ObamaCare is all about; it is the metaphorical bullets Lenin was talking about. As for Obama’s corporate and entertainment industry supporters I refer to another Alinsky quote:

“I have on occasion remarked that I felt confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday. — P.150 Rules for Radicals.”

I have included this short video, which summarizes the story of Barack Hussein Obama. I have covered most of the bullet points shown in the video presentation, but there are a few I have passed over for brevity or for which I could find no immediate documentation. On the whole the video can be considered an executive summary of this blog post.

This is the hollow man we have in the White House, a person of no great intellect or moral foundation formed, prepared and managed by the dark Marxist forces of the Chicago political machine and the foundations financed by the greatest puppet master of them all — George Soros — that want to transform the United States into a socialist utopia. Be it Marxist masterminds or corporate puppeteers Barack Hussein Obama is a true Manchurian Candidate.

The Administrative State

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair

Current conventional wisdom about the November elections says the biggest issue will be "jobs" and who can best revive the economy. However, emerging out of the rhetorical fog is the shape of something far more fundamental: a stark oncoming clash of worldviews demanding resolution.

It's becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama, unable to run for re-election on a record of positive economic accomplishments during his first term, has decided to reframe the election debate as a final choice between two worldviews. If he hadn't done so, the same debate would have been forced upon him by those terrified by what they see ahead.

In his recent State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama sought to define the conflict as being between two irresolvable opposites of his choosing:

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

He goes on to present a false choice between doing nothing and creating an economy in which achievers must be pulled down rather than the poor raised up — all in the interests of "fairness." At no point does Obama consider reducing the cost, size, and reach of government.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) makes clear that Obama's worldview has never had an underlying economic argument. Instead, in a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, Cantor claims that it is "all about social justice."

“The "philosophical starting point" of today's Democrats, as Mr. Cantor sees it, is that they "believe in a welfare state before they believe in capitalism. They promote economic programs of redistribution to close the gap of the disparity between the classes. That's what they're about: redistributive politics."

In a speech on the Senate floor last summer, Marco Rubio (R-FL) made clear that the competing worldviews to be settled in the upcoming election will be between those who believe that the government's job is to "deliver economic justice" and those who believe that the government's job is to "promote economic opportunity."

Are these views reconcilable? Senator Rubio thinks not.

“Ultimately, we may find that between these two points there may not be a middle ground, and that, in fact, as a nation and as a people, we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America, moving forward.”

Interestingly, the conflict between freedom for individual wealth-creation at all economic levels and government-enforced wealth-redistribution has roiled since the earliest days of our nation's founding. As students of world history know, the dominant governing model worldwide for thousands of years involved a strong central authority usually led by a ruling individual, be he king or tribal chief or dictator by some other name. Not until the 17th century would groups of individuals escaping the tyranny of Europe's top-down rule settle on the shores of a new continent to try a different way.

On a ship to the new land, Pilgrims so adverse to the old ruling model voted to adopt a new one — a "Commonwealth" — where each family would provide common goods for the community to be shared equally. As documented by their first American governor, William Bradford, the Plymouth colony suffered mightily as a result. Some refused to contribute equally. Basic human nature kicked in as top producers refused to assist slackers, and the colony almost perished from disease and hunger. In desperation, they established a private property model, with individuals free to profit from the results of their efforts. Prosperity returned within a year. We now celebrate Thanksgiving as a result.

In his article for the Ludwig von Mises Institute on the Great Thanksgiving Day Hoax Richard Maybury writes:

“After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.”

The wonders which result from releasing individual human effort to develop private property and wealth unshackled from collective limits enforced by others became a lesson not lost on following settlers. Yet, a hundred years later, the prospering colonies came under oppressive domination by the king and parliament of England. In response, a movement for full independence grew as reaffirmation of the basic need for individual freedom in economic and religious endeavor.

The Declaration of Independence formally challenged the worldwide governing model. Its opening sentence presents a humble pronouncement that common people poorly governed are free to pledge obedience to governance under a power higher than human rule to secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

With the War for Independence over a year old and hope for a peaceful resolution nonexistent, the Continental Congress appointed a Committee of Five—including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin—to draft a document “declaring the causes which impel the American colonies to the separation.” Thirty-three-year-old Jefferson composed the initial draft, completing it in seventeen days. The committee submitted its draft to Congress on June 28, 1776, and on July 2, Congress voted for independence. Two days later, after numerous edits, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence by unanimous vote.

The opening words of the Declaration were one of the most powerful statements on government ever put to pen:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It was this statement that became the vision statement for the United States and the basis of our governing principles. The first part of the Declaration sets forth the vision. The second part lists the grievances against the King and the mother country and the third part states what we will do about it.

One of the grievances listed stated: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” This was our Founder’s rebuke of the Administrative State.

It took another decade and a hard-fought war to secure political independence and write a constitution enshrining the concept of limited central government within a representative republic composed of separate sovereign states intended to spread over an entire continent. Even then, adoption of the Constitution was not secured without the inclusion of ten amendments further driving home the concept of restricting central-government’s encroachment on individual liberty.

For over another hundred years, through tumultuous times of financial booms and busts, westward exploration and emigration, foreign wars, and a devastating civil war, the nation survived and prospered. But then came Woodrow Wilson, the first American president elected to office after declaring the Constitution "obsolete" in the modern world of industrial growth, dense urbanization, and massive immigration. The founding of the nation, according to Wilson, was a "simple age," and humans had evolved beyond that time. He called for "progressive" reforms, resurrecting the notion of a stronger central government, greater regulation of private enterprise, and a need for international collectivism. It was Wilson who stated “the Constitution was written in the age of Newton — now we have Darwin.” I will take Sir Isaac Newton over Darwin any day of the week.

For a time, some of the "progressive" reforms made sense to check monopolies and other forms of unethical behavior within the private enterprise system. However, in the last sixty years, an ever-growing effort has evolved, bringing the nation closer again to governance by a crushing central government mandating a collectivist egalitarian model of wealth redistribution not unlike that which failed for the early Pilgrims. The Great Recession of 2008 has spawned a full assault by Barack Obama and his Democrat Party on the private-enterprise system and individual liberty. Their policies now threaten without apology to end the great experiment embodied in the country's founding and has brought to a pint where they have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Wilson’s progress and the statism and progressive policies that have followed, has been paid for with our liberty. All of this so called progress has been implemented on the American people by the coercion of government by taking from the liberty and property of one group to give it to another group. In essence every ounce of this progress has been paid for by an equivalent ounce of someone’s liberty.

James Madison stated in Federalist Paper No.47:

“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”

Madison was talking about the power of the legislative, executive, and judiciary. This is the reason he advocated a “Compound Republic” where these powers would have checks and balances.

Madison stated in Federalist Paper No.62 regarding the legislative process:

“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?

It was the intent of our Founders that each of the three branches would govern with the consent of the other. What Madison and our Founders feared was the development of a fourth branch of government; the Administrative Branch.

This administrative branch answers to virtually no one. They are part and parcel of the executive branch and even after an election that causes a change in the executive the administrators or bureaucrats remain in power. They are the elites and masterminds who interpret the voluminous laws enacted by the legislative branch with little or no accountability to the American people. Just look at ObamaCare, a 3,000 plus page law that no one understands and is left to the bureaucrats to interpret and enforce with the full force of government.

With every shift of power from the local and state to federal level government becomes less representative and prey the special interest groups (or as Madison called them “factions”) and big corporations on both the left and the right. These swarms of bureaucrats have replaced the natural rights of liberty granted by God with the sentimentality and statism of the utopians and masterminds. This is pure Wilsonian progressivism. This progressivism permeates every aspect of our life today from education, taxes, and the use of energy to environmental regulations. I sometimes think that if the colonist had electricity they would have tossed a boat load of those curly cue light bulbs into the Boston Harbor rather than their breakfast beverage.

Obama exploits the citizenry's concerted blindness, cloaking his views under veneers of "social justice," "fairness," and "progress." Unadulterated Marxism attracts few votes. In rare candor, sans teleprompter, Obama lectured Joe the Plumber that his prescription for widespread prosperity is "spreading the wealth around."

Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice." Obama's justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.

Still, most Americans would deny Obama's Marxist outlook, mistaking the term's meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao. Marxist theory informed many of history's most murderous tyrants, but Obama's brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge. He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.

Obama perceives society through lenses skewed by this modern version of Marxism. Obama's proposals inevitably leverage left-wing radicals or government organs to redistribute wealth, power, or caches of moral superiority under pretense of combating prejudice. Power shifts from private to public — or from parties previously seen as oppressors to those whom progressives deem oppressed.

In a recent speech at Hillsdale College entitled "The New Road to Serfdom: Lessons to Learn from European Policy" Daniel Hannan, a British Member of the European Parliament warned America of the impending disaster if we followed the course the European Union has taken for the past 30 years on their march to a socialistic and utopian society.

A clear sign of troubling impact on American society, the Heritage Foundation reports that 70 percent of government spending now goes to individual assistance programs. One in five Americans (more than 67.3 million) — the highest number in the nation's history — relies almost entirely on government and not himself for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to retirement assistance — all paid for by others. This is clearly not what our Founders envisioned when the pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

To make matters worse, estimated government spending by states and local jurisdictions nearly matches the federal outlay. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, in a recent interview, reveals what this means:

“The GDP is near $15 trillion while government spending at all levels is $6.7 trillion. So; we're $800 billion away from half, and health care is coming. That means that government will become greater than the rest of society. How can the rest of society watch it? There are endless possibilities of corruption in such a situation with resulting loss of public morality.”

Clearly, spending on such a gigantic scale has hit home for many terrified Americans. They see the future for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren doomed to an era of continued low prosperity and massive corruption. Taking money by coercion from one to give to another has been historically called "theft" — not "fairness." Receiving largess without effort crushes the drive and work ethic of each able-bodied recipient. The current turmoil in Europe, even now being copied on a smaller scale by the "entitled poor" of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, clearly shows the ugliness ahead.

Will the Obama administration, by dispensing largesse on a massive scale in exchange for votes, subvert the limited central government model inherent in our Constitution? Will we revert to governance under the age-old model of strong central authority maintaining top-down power and control as demonstrated by King George? Can the Republican candidates for president and Congress articulate the blessings of widespread wealth and prosperity resulting from unleashing individual liberty with individual responsibility versus powerless masses scrambling to just get a piece of the dole? Or have Democrats convinced a sufficient number of voters to let "economic justice" replace "economic opportunity"?

Our own historic Plymouth colony and the European collapse today reveal lessons for all to see. The coming election provides voters the first real opportunity afforded by our Constitution for Americans to render their decision on which worldview they wish to adopt, since Mr. Obama has made the choice so clear. Resolution of this coming clash of worldviews will have profound significance for us all.

Another Failure for Obama

"Human reason can neither predict nor deliberately shape its own future. Its advances consist in finding out where it has been wrong." — Frederick. Hayek

How many times have we heard statist say that that government has the answers for our problems and that all we need to do is try a bit harder and spend more of your money. His is the god complex of the liberal.

I recall, while in high school, I read the book Tobacco Road by Erskine Caldwell. Sister Bessie and Dude, two of the characters in the book, buy a new Ford automobile for the purpose of traveling around the country. Over time the car falls into disrepair due to an accident and lack of proper maintenance. Dude doesn’t know a thing about automobiles, but he heard somewhere that by adjusting the needle valve on the carburetor (something automobiles don’t use anymore) he could make the car run properly. After many attempts at tinkering with the engine the car never did run and it sat in front of Jeeter’s ramshackle house.

Obama is the new Dude. He was given a nation to oversee and after his tinkering by his czars the economy has not run very well, if at all. The latest evidence of his tinkering is in Freemont, California. Solyndra, a major manufacturer of solar technology in Fremont, has shut its doors, according to employees at the campus. Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said “it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that.” The federal government ponied up $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for this tinkering and Barack Obama touted his achievements while the main stream media heaped praise on his “green jobs” programs. (Click here to see the failure of Obama’s 29 million dollar green job bust in Seattle, Washington).

The Obama administration has been trying to foist green industry on uninterested Americans since he first stepped in to office three years ago. So far, the efforts have been less than successful. The Chevy Volt has miserable sales, wind-power has proven to be something less than a viable alternative, and now it appears that reality is catching up with solar power as well.

Solyndra is a solar panel maker that was propped up by the administration having been awarded over half a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Now, the company is going under and taking all that money and 1,100 employees jobs with it.

Solyndra is a solar panel maker that was propped up by the administration having been awarded over half a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Now, the company is going under and taking all that money and 1,100 employees’ jobs with it.

Solyndra, a California solar panel maker, had long been an administration favorite. Over the past two years, President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu each had made congratulatory visits to the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters in Freemont, California. Each visit was accompanied by a covey of ogling reporters ready to write the story of an administration success in the green jobs marketplace. Oh, how wonderful it was going to be.

According to the Washington Post:

“Although Wednesday’s announcement came as a surprise, House Republicans and government auditors had questioned the wisdom of the administration’s loan guarantees to the company, backed by capital from billionaire Democratic fundraiser George Kaiser. In July, a House subcommittee subpoenaed White House documents related to the guarantee, and after Wednesday’s developments, Republican lawmakers vowed to continue investigating.”

The RNC has released a video that documents the rhetoric and the reality that has surrounded this big government test case

On July 14^th an article in the Washington Post stated:

“Republicans on the committee have been investigating how the Energy Department chose Solyndra to receive its first loan guarantee for innovative technology under the federal stimulus plan. After the 2009 approval, Solyndra ran into financial difficulty and canceled a planned public stock offering.

Some of the biggest investors in Solyndra were venture capital funds associated with Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama fundraiser. Some Republicans have questioned whether the administration rushed stimulus funding out the door to benefit its political supporters.

After spirited debate on Thursday, Republicans on the oversight and investigations subcommittee voted to subpoena e-mail and other documents related to Solyndra that they said OMB officials had failed to produce voluntarily.

Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said before the vote on Thursday, “This is not a step this committee takes lightly.” Upton said the committee “has an institutional obligation to obtain information from the executive branch so it can carry out its duties.”

Democrats argued that the White House was doing its best to comply with investigators, but that requests so far had been overly broad and, in the words of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a “fishing expedition.”

The resolution authorizing the subpoena passed 14 to 8 on a straight party vote.”

According to a report by Bay Area NBC

“Shortly after it opened a massive $700 million facility, it canceled plans for a public stock offering earlier this year and warned it would be in significant trouble if federal loan guarantees did not go through.

The company has said it will make a statement at 9am California time, though it's not clear what that statement will be. An NBC Bay Area photographer on the scene reports security guards are not letting visitors on campus. He says "people are standing around in disbelief." The employees have been given yellow envelopes with instructions on how to get their last checks.

Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said "it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. "

The reasons for Solyndra’s failure are simple enough. Consumers simply haven’t expressed an interest in paying the exorbitant fees associated with upgrading to solar, even with the massive subsidies that are available.

But solar industry analyst Peter Lynch said that Solyndra struggled from the beginning with an imbalanced financial model. “You make something in a factory and it costs $6, you sell it for $3, but you really, really need to sell it for $1.50 to be competitive,” Lynch said of Solyndra. “It was an insane business model. The numbers just don’t work, and they never did.”

It’s pretty clear that President Obama knew that this was the case judging by how much effort he has put into shutting down the coal industry in hopes that American’s would have no other alternative but to fulfill his dreams of green industry and carbon trading.

I have solar panels on my house in order to reduce my energy costs. It’s a fairly large investment and if you have a low electric bill the ROI probably will not work out very well. I happen to live in an area where temperatures during July, August, and September average at the 100 degree mark and with the AC running my electric bill can get pretty high. When we did the cost/benefit calculations for our investment in solar it made sense for us. This is not the case for many home owners.

During the installation of our solar panels I check on the source of the panels and they were made in China. No doubt those lost Solyndra jobs will never be recovered.

In March of 2010 BP announced it was closing its solar panel manufacturing facility in Frederick Maryland and moving the whole operation to hina and India. The Washington Post reported:

“BP will close its solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, the final step in moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India and other countries.

Just 3 1/2 years ago, in an announcement widely hailed by Maryland officials and promoters of "green jobs," BP unveiled a $70 million plan to double output at the facility and erected a building to house the production lines.

But on Friday the company said it would lay off 320 workers and keep only a hundred people involved in research, sales and project development. BP said laid-off employees would receive full pay and benefits for three months, followed by severance packages and job-placement assistance. The company, unable to sell or lease the building, will tear it down.”

Solyndra, like BP and the Seattle debacle are just a few examples of Obama’s miserable failures at creating green or any other jobs. The taxpayers are on the hook for billions in wasted dollars for these failed policies. The government cannot create sustainable jobs in a free market. The government can only create government jobs that further sap our economy with bloated civil service salaries and unfunded pension liabilities.

No doubt in his jobs speech next Thursday Obama will still tout his green jobs and an infrastructure bank. This will be another example of central planning and it too will fail as his “shovel ready” jobs program has. I have written extensively about infrastructure funding and the fallacy of high speed rail. We have a president and a covey of advisors with absolutely no knowledge or experience in creating jobs in the free market. Even his jobs czar, Jeffery Immelt the CEO of GE, is more concerned with exporting jobs to China and India and not paying taxes than creating job in the United States.

I take no joy in a company going under, much less the loss of income for those 1,100 people that worked there. As the real estate sector continues to struggle, banks that had received TARP are in danger of financial meltdown, publicly financed cars sit on the showroom floor with no buyers, and government guaranteed corporations with unsustainable business models go under – is it perhaps time to consider that whether it’s TARP, auto bailouts or stimulus loans, the market is much better at picking winners and losers than Barack Obama or George W. Bush?

Obama’s Hypocrisy on Jobs

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” — Friedrich August von Hayek

A few days ago President Obama sat on a panel with Jeffrey Immelt the CEO of General Electric. They both had a good chuckle when Obama said that his shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready, ha, ha, ha.

Immelt heads up Obama’s so called Jobs Council; a group of academics that have never created one job in their lives. Immelt has also been a strong supporter of Obama.

In his efforts to create jobs in the United States Immelt, Obama’s buddy, has done two things that go virtually unreported in the main stream media. Firstly he moved GE’s X-Ray Division from Waukesha, Wisconsin to Beijing, China. On July 26, 2011 the Wall Street Journal reported:

“General Electric Co. said it is moving its X-ray business headquarters to China to accelerate sales in the country's fast-growing health-care market, the latest sign of China's growing importance to the giant U.S. conglomerate.

The X-ray unit will be the company's first business to be based in China.

The business has already begun the move—which includes the unit's chief executive and three other members of its executive team—and expects to complete the process by year end, said Anne LeGrand, vice president and general manager of GE Healthcare Global X-Ray. The senior leadership team's move to Beijing is aimed in part at helping develop more medical equipment specifically for the Chinese market, Ms. LeGrand told a news briefing Monday.

GE said it doesn't expect the move to result in any job losses in the U.S., where the unit has been based in Waukesha, Wis. The Wisconsin X-ray division has 120 employees. The company also said it is too early to say how many employees it will hire for the unit's new Beijing headquarters.

"As the company grows more global, it's increasingly important for us to become close to our customers," Ms. LeGrand said, adding that she expects 20% to 25% of GE Healthcare's X-ray products to be developed in China during the next three to five years for sale around the world.

As China's market has boomed for a range of products, a small but growing number of companies have moved senior executives to the country or sent them for extended stints. Intel Corp. in May said Sean Maloney, one of its best-known senior executives, would move to China from Silicon Valley to oversee the chip giant's operations here. Bayer AG unit Bayer Healthcare moved its general medicine headquarters from Germany to Beijing in March, and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. of the U.S. temporarily moved its headquarters to Shanghai for five weeks starting last month.

GE has long placed high hopes on China, with CEO Jeffrey Immelt in 2008 calling it the company's "second home market." In January, the company finalized a deal with state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China to inject much of GE's civilian avionics business into a 50-50 joint venture based in China.”

If this wasn’t enough Immelt then announced GE has struck a billion dollar deal with the Chinese state owned aircraft industry to export GE’s sophisticated avionics business to China for the manufacture of the COMAC C919 airliner that will compete with Boeing, a company battling he NLRB to build their Dreamliner in South Carolina with American workers. The Business Courier reports:

“When GE Aviation Systems signed a joint venture agreement last month with a state-owned Chinese conglomerate, plenty of questions were raised about transferring aviation electronics technology and intellectual property to what will be a China-based company.

The 50-50 joint venture will develop avionics for new commercial airplanes, beginning with the Chinese-built COMAC C919 that’s due to enter service in 2016. Avionics are a plane’s central information system and related applications such as cockpit displays. Officially, the joint venture is the GE AVIC Civil Avionics Co.

Skeptics cite examples of China exploiting foreign companies to gain access to technology in order to build its own capabilities. The country’s desire to create its own globally competitive industries – including aviation – is hardly a secret.

GE officials acknowledge that protection of the company’s intellectual property is a concern, but they insist the AVIC joint venture includes adequate safeguards.

For GE Aviation, the real issue is this: There are huge opportunities in the Chinese aviation market, poised for rapid growth in coming decades.”

Here we have a person Obama has appointed to a council for creating jobs in the United States exporting jobs offshore to China while his NLRB fights Boeing’s move to South Carolina where they will create good paying jobs in Charleston. GE’s move will also take commercial aviation business away from Boeing, thus reducing jobs in the United States.

GE one of the largest exporters of jobs and a company that has paid no corporate taxes is one of Obama’s favorites and one of his largest contributors to his presidential campaign Until this year when Comcast took over GE owned the cable network MSNBC Obama’s biggest mouthpiece. These are the guys Obama hangs out with while he tells us to sacrifice and pay more taxes.

There is another aspect to GE’s deal with the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (CACC) and that’s the national security issue. GE will be giving sophisticated avionics technology to the Chinese that can be used in commercial aircraft and fighter planes and guided missiles. An article in Daily Finance by Peter Cohan states:

“General Electric (GE) plans to sell its aircraft electronics to Chinese companies, and if you don't have a problem with that, maybe you should. After all, China just flight-tested a prototype stealth fighter (pictured), it continues to build up its military -- and we can only hope it's not planning to expand its territory in ways that threaten the U.S.

But if China does decide to get aggressive with the U.S., GE will have provided it with the aircraft technology it will be using.

According to The New York Times, GE is signing a deal to sell avionics technology -- electronics that control an aircraft's basic in-flight operations -- to Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (CACC), which aspires to build commercial and military aircraft. GE will do this through a joint venture with a Chinese company, Aviation Industry Corp. of China (Avic). Avic makes avionics for CACC and for China's military -- including its stealth fighter.

Sure, GE is based in the U.S., but that doesn't mean its shareholders expect it to be loyal to U.S. interests. Still, selling technology it developed for U.S. companies like Boeing (BA) to Boeing's Chinese competitors -- which are trying to build a competing aircraft company -- may be going too far. The question facing American policymakers is how to keep GE from crossing the line before it's too late.”

Mr. Cohan continues:

“Officially, this GE/Avic venture will be making a commercial aircraft for CACC. The Times reports that together, they'll build CACC's C919 -- a single-aisle plane capable of carrying up to 200 passengers and designed to compete with the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 -- to be delivered in 2016. The avionics technology that GE/Avic will supply is the same as GE is providing to Boeing for its 787 Dreamliner, an industry-leading concept vehicle that is proving awfully hard for Boeing to deliver.

Is GE betraying its customers and its country? I think so. And the reason it's doing so is simple: GE believes that China will be a $400 billion market for its aircraft products over the next two decades. To be fair, GE is making all sorts of noises about how China's aircraft industry isn't sophisticated, so it won't be able to make use of all GE's advanced technology against Boeing or the American military. GE also claims it briefed the U.S. government before selling this technology to China, and that its joint venture will keep a Chinese Wall (pun intended) between its commercial and defense units.”

Mr. Cohan concludes:

“All this corporate maneuvering raises an important question: Who's in charge? To me, it looks like big-company CEOs are making the decisions that will determine America's fate. These execs may live in the U.S., but they're making big money by selling our best technology to China. And since China is lending America $907 billion through its government bond holdings, our nation's financial system is also under China's thumb.”

Television host Bill O’Reilly has long been skewering General Electric and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt for his company’s corruption and double standards. He really let loose on a recent episode of "The O’Reilly Factor," bringing in several researchers who claim that GE, the company for which Ronald Reagan was spokesman from 1954 to 1962, was heavily involved with a corrupt charity called “Oil-For-Food” in Iraq that benefited Saddam Hussein and got American soldiers killed.

Immelt, besides being the CEO of GE, is also President Obama’s jobs czar. He has consistently lectured businesses in America to pay up and create more jobs regardless of tax and regulatory burdens.

On the show, O’Reilly highlighted how GE had been fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission almost $24 million for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In the segment, O’Reilly asked Dr. Tom Borelli, who is the director of The Free Enterprise Project, if it is unfair to attack GE specifically for its malfeasance if many other companies were involved.

Borelli answered, “Absolutely not, because there has been a pattern of corruption at General Electric.”

Borelli then went on about how GE had been “cooking the books” to create the perception of higher earnings, which also forced them to settle with the SEC.

This scandal is only one in a long line of offenses both of corruption and hypocrisy that have riled up O’Reilly, and conservatives especially.

Back in July, Immelt got up on his high horse to lecture business owners at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. He said, among other things, that companies must “double the number of engineering interns taken from colleges and universities.” This, of course, doesn’t coincide well with Obama’s plan to crack down on unpaid internships.

He then complained of a lack of skilled U.S. workers. “There are thousands of open jobs in the advanced manufacturing and health care fields, but our training programs have not evolved to keep up with changes in technology or the needs of employers.”

Immelt told business owners in the room, “The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action under way. There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution.”

While Immelt’s theme at the conference was basically, “American jobs for American workers,” GE shortly thereafter announced that the company will move thousands of GE Healthcare jobs over to China.

A spokeswoman from GE said that the move away from “Waukesha, Wisconsin, was made two years ago and will be completed by early fall.”

In part this move, like many others that GE has made, will allow it to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 GE didn’t pay any federal taxes at all. It did this by hiring an army of lobbyists and tax lawyers, and by shifting businesses overseas.

Worse than the simple act of moving jobs overseas, which is what many other businesses must do to compete in a heavily taxed environment, is the sharing of innovative technology secrets with China. GE has decided to sell highly sophisticated aircraft technology to the Chinese government. The technology being sold is the kind that goes into the military aircraft built by Boeing.

The path that GE has been taking is a far cry from the days when Ronald Reagan was the company’s spokesman. For years before he really entered politics, Reagan traveled around the country speaking positively about the company and its workers. It was from these lectures and his countrywide travels that he crafted the famous “Time for Choosing” speech in the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, thereby launching his national political image.

With the corrupt actions of GE and the hypocritical language of its CEO, who is closely aligned with President Obama, it is no wonder that many conservatives have turned against the company.