This LiveLeak Video shows that one of the "undecided voters" in a Frank Luntz focus group at the Republican Debate on November 28, 2007 in Florida was in fact a longtime Bush family operative named Douglas Maher. He does his part to smear the very honorable and intelligent Dr. Ron Paul by calling him "certifiably insane."

Since the neocons can't win on the issues or facts they need to resort to a smear campaign. Note also how these debate audiences are stacked in favor of the GOP establishment candidates. Of the 3,000 tickets for this debate 2,000 went to the Giuliani and Romney campaigns to distribute.
Live Leak Video about Civil Liberties

Money and Power, Part XII

This is the day Hillary haters have dreamed of: Hillary on the ropes. The thought of her desperately trying to come from behind - to the point of embarrassing herself - is almost orgasmic to her foes.

Of course, with their Darth Vader tools well in hand, the Clintons might yet pull out another four years of life on the dole in the White House. But their worst nightmare - a half-white, half-black populist - is standing in the way. And it's not likely that Obama will end up dead in a Virginia park like Clinton's Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. A mysterious "suicide" would not play well with his adoring fans.

So, regardless of what happens in Ohio, there's an excellent chance that Hillary may go down in a blaze of humiliation. Ironically, though, her detractors may live to regret it. It's not that she's incapable of causing Americans enormous pain. She is. But, as I've repeatedly said, I believe that Hillary, like hubby Bill before her, is primarily interested in just enjoying the titillation that comes with raw power.

Sure, if elected, she would try to up the ante on the entitlement programs that already have the country on its financial knees. But, like her husband, she would forget about pushing through socialist legislation and move toward the center once the backlash became intense. Why? Because moving to the center is the easiest way to appease people, and thus the easiest way to hang onto power.

Which brings us to Hillary's opponent, a young man with an admittedly smooth delivery, though a Zig Ziglar he is not. However, it's what Obama says that concerns me.

I'm not talking about the hollow stuff he spews out when he's on his game:

"We need something new!"

"We need to go in a new direction!"

"You and I together will go forward to change the country and change the world!"

"Yes, we can!"

"A new America!"

Of and by itself, there's nothing extraordinary about such populist blather. It's been around since at least the time of Julius Caesar and Clodius, both of whom shamelessly sought the affection of the lower classes to bolster their political constituencies. In fact, I think Obama does just fine when he doesn't really say anything.

But when he occasionally slips and says something specific about what he intends to do when he gets those reins of power in his hands, it's worth paying attention to. Take, for example, "I believe health care is a right, not a privilege." As soon as he made that statement, I no longer saw him as an innocuous babbler.

Now, this might surprise you, but I don't think Obama is preaching the age-old class warfare line because he wants to harm anyone. He's not a Che Guevara or Vladimir Lenin by any means. I believe Obama is sincere - sincerely naïve, that is. Which is what makes him so dangerous.

As soon as someone starts manufacturing rights for people, I pay attention, because it means he wants to play God. It's the old desires-to-needs-to rights game, and it's played like this: If I have a desire for a new car, that's my business. But if, through some Orwellian brain malfunction, I proclaim my desire to be a "need," that's when it starts threatening to become your business.

Now all I have to do is convince enough populist politicians that my newfound "need" is a "right," and I'm on my way to getting it - without having to earn it. Of course, the fact that I refer to my desire as either a "need" or a "right" is pure poppycock. I may just as well call it a wart.

No matter what word I assign to it, it doesn't give me license to force you to help me acquire it just because I happen to want it. Whether it's a car, a house, a "minimum wage," education for my children, or "health care," the principle remains the same: It's okay for me to desire any or all of these things, but I don't have a right to them. More specifically, I don't have the right to force you (through government coercion or any other means) to give them to me.

Sorry, but here's the unvarnished truth: The only rights you have are the natural rights you inherited at birth - specifically, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All other rights are but a figment of certain people's imaginations. And the only way to enforce those artificial rights is by violating the rights of others.

Again, I don't believe that Obama is out to do evil. But sincerely ignorant people have been known to lead revolutions. If Obama becomes president, I strongly suspect he will believe he has been anointed to award "rights" to those he deems worthy - at your expense.

And to the extent he can put his sincere beliefs into action (which would be very possible with a sympathetic Congress), the invisible depression we have long experienced will become visible much more quickly. That's because the power to create all that mischief can be made possible only by dramatically increasing the supply of paper and electronic dollars.

Which means most people will be in pain as a result of a rapid decrease in their buying power. And when people are in pain, morals and rational thinking tend to become disposable commodities. In Part XIII of this series, we'll take a look at what happens when morals and rational thinking make their exit.

If you would like to speak up about the topic of this article, send your comments to: questions@robertringer.com

I Don't want to be accused of jumping to conclusions.

Barack Obama's "squeaky clean" reputation is once again being tarnished by shady entrepreneurs who have supported him financially, this time a convicted Iraqi billionaire who funneled millions to the Illinois senator in 2005.

A British newspaper has published a lengthy story on the scandal, which connects the Democratic presidential candidate and his indicted longtime Syrian financial supporter (currently on trial for corruption) with one of Britain's richest people, a criminal Iraqi guru named Nadhmi Auchi.

It turns out that Auchi, convicted in Europe for operating a massive kickback scheme, gave Obama $3.5 million just weeks before the senator purchased a pricey mansion in an exclusive Chicago neighborhood. Auchi funneled the money to Obama through the senator's friend and campaign bankroller, Antoin Rezko, the Syrian businessman charged with influence peddling, extortion and conspiracy.

A loyal Obama supporter for years, Rezko is on trial for plotting to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of firms seeking state business. He had been free on bail since being indicted last year, but was subsequently arrested and ordered to remain in jail after receiving a multi million-dollar wire from Beirut that led authorities to think he planned to flee to the Middle East.

It was Rezko who introduced Obama to Auchi, convicted in France in 2003 for operating what has been described as the biggest political and corporate scandal in post-war Europe. The legal problems didn't deter Obama from taking Auchi's money nor have they affected his empire. Auchi is reportedly among Britain's wealthiest men and one of the richest people in the world, according to Forbes Magazine.