As I blog on my Google-based, ultimate tracking device, I certainly see the irony in posting anything that shines a negative light on the search monster. After all, I can always find a map or information about neighbors. What could be better than that.
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It's a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance.
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that:
The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. [...] That Google was impartial was one of the articles of faith. For if Google was ever to be found to be applying subjective human judgment directly on the process, it would be akin to the voting machines being rigged. [...] It wasn't surprising, then, that when five years ago I described how a small, self-selected number of people could rig Google's search results, the reaction from the people doing the rigging was violently antagonistic. Who lifted that rock? they cried.
But what was once Googlewashing by a select few now has Google's active participation.
A while back, I found Scroogle.org -- a site that scrapes Google searches for you anonymously. If you're ever feeling a little violated by the barrage of eyeballs on your life, head to Scroogle, where you can run around naked with the lights on -- and search in privacy, too.
Chicago Tribune: Catherine Vogt, 14, conducted an experiment in political tolerance at her Oak Park middle school and learned some valuable lessons. (Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo / November 12, 2008)
Catherine Vogt, a 14-year-old Chicago student, tested the reaction of fellow classmates by wearing "McCain Girl" and "Obama Girl" shirts to school. She recorded her results as an extra-credit project for history class. Here she shares them with Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker: "McCain Girl."
"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters ..."
"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said. ... "One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park. [...]
"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said. [...]
The next day, in part 2 of The Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment, she wore another T-shirt, this one with "Obama Girl" written in blue. And an amazing thing happened.
Catherine wasn't very stupid anymore. She grew brains.
The new majority: conformists committed to non-conformity — in the name of fitting in.
Blogger covertress reports that an article she wrote, Bin Laden Planning to Outdo Sept. 11 Attack — which cites a London-based, Arab newspaper as reporting that "OSAMA bin Laden is planning an attack against the United States that will 'outdo by far' September 11" — generated a huge upswing in hits to her website and ponders the causal link.
I have never seen so many hits on my site as this weekend (17k+ and 24k+) when I reported that "Jihadists Call On Muslims to Attack" and this story. The only other time that I had thousands of visitors (6k+) was when I wrote "Allah Willing, the American Empire Will Collapse". One could conclude that there are many just waiting for the word. I hope I'm wrong. - c
The beginning of the "mettle" testing of not just the seemingly fearless but fully unprepared Barack Obama — but Americans.
UPDATES: Supreme Court to Determine Legality of Berg v. Obama (see below)
Philip J. Berg announced today that the Supreme Court has "set dates" by which Obama and the DNC must respond to the Writ of Certiorari — on or before December 1, 2008.
Today, the blogosphere erupted with news about the lawsuit filed by Philip J. Berg, which compelled Obama to produce his original, long-form Hawaiian birth certificate to prove his elegibility to become President of the United States. A press release on the ObamaCrimes.com website states:
[Philip J. Berg] ... filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.
Mr. Berg remarked today, "I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States."
The NEIN Blog offers further explanation of Mr. Berg's announcement:
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reasons. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.
Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.
While the mainstream media has chattered on endlessly about the very important talk of what kind of dog Obama's daughters will be getting and whether Michelle Obama should have that worn "that" dress, there's been little if no talk about Obama's questionable campaign donations, potential voter fraud in key states like Ohio and Florida, Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko — and, of course, nothing about the lingering issue of his proof of citizenship.
We will watch and wait and hope for "change."
**************
UPDATE 11/11/2008
This post has been amended to reflect updates on ObamaCrimes.com — U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO BERG'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS — and The NEIN Blog.
From ObamaCrimes.com, 11/10/2008
Mr. Berg has been receiving phone calls today asking for a copy of "the order from the Supreme Court requiring that Obama produce his citizenship documentation."
Mr. Berg has not received notification of any such order or anything similar to it, nor is it posted on the Supreme Court website.
From The NEIN Blog:
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Judge Surrick, who presides over the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, must respond to the Writ of Certiorari (sur-shee-uh-rare-eye) by providing to SCOTUS Justice Souter all documents and court proceedings in the case of Berg v. Obama. The crux of the matter here is that Obama (et al.) filed only a motion to dismiss on the grounds on Phil Berg's "lack of standing" to file the lawsuit. No information countering Berg's allegations or challenges to Obama's status as a natural born citizen were addressed. Judge Surrick agreed with the Obama motion and dismissed the case due to Berg's "lack of standing." Justice Souter will most certainly see the specific challenge to Obama's eligibilty pursuant to the Constitutional requirement for president and subsequently may then issue an order for Obama (et al.) to submit docmentation proving his natural born citizenship status to Judge Surrick, or to provide them directly to the SCOTUS.
Blogger commonsenselogic points out the following statement from the video:
"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism, the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."
Barack Obama and Joe Biden want to put your tax dollars—billions of them (about 875 billion, to be exact)—to work for the world. A grand and noble idea, you probably think, but think again about every working American, working to take care of the entire world. Ever feel like the weight of the world is on your shoulders? Perhaps Obama needs to be reminded of "teach a man to fish ..." But why bother when you can just keep taxing those rich, greedy Americans. (Could you pass the caviar, Michelle? And by the way, I, too, am down with J. Crew bargains—how did you ever make People's and Vanity Fair's Best Dressed on such a modest budget?)
Cliff Kinkaid, of Accuracy in Media, wrote this in his February 12 article on Obama's "Global Tax" initiative:
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
The MSM took a break from analyzing the Sarah Palin wardrobe to report on important potential campaign fraud. CBS took a small step toward responsible journalism in this story on Barack Obama's questionable financing—from some major donors like JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs and many donors who've contributing beyond Federal limits.
Many socialist leaders have stepped forward claiming that Barack Obama is not tied to their parties or ideology—and that those non-existing ties were never strong anyway. Here's a brief post from the Democratic Socialist Party (DSA) website.
Section 4: A Strategy for the Next Left [...] Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized. [...] If socialism cannot be achieved primarily from above, through a democratic government that owns,control and regulates the major corporations, then it must emerge from below, through a democratic transformation of the institutions of civil society, particularly those in the economic sphere -- in other words, a program for economic democracy ...
Economic Democracy. Economic democracy can empower wage and income earners through building cooperative and public institutions that own and control local economic resources. Economic democracy means, in the most general terms, the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners. Such a transformation of worklife directly embodies and presages the practices and principles of a socialist society.
Alternative economic institutions, such as cooperatives and consumer, community, and worker-owned facilities are central to economic democracy. Equally important is the assertion of democratic control over private resources such as insurance and credit, making them available for socially responsible investment as well as over land, raw materials, and manufacturing infrastructure. Such democratic control must also encompass existing financial institutions, whose funds can be used to invest in places abandoned or bypassed by transnational capital, such as urban and rural areas, and in sectors of the population that have been historically denied control and ownership of significant economic resources. Such a program will recognize the economic value of childrearing and home care by family members as unpaid labor, and account for this work in all considerations of benefits. [emphasis added]
Key to economic democracy is a democratic labor movement that plays a central role in the struggle for a democratic workplace, whether worker or privately owned. In workplaces that the employees do not own - traditional corporations, family businesses, government, and private nonprofits - only independent, democratically run unions can protect workers.[emphasis added]
More unions? Paid to bear children and take care of them at home? (Maybe in the form of tax credits?)
Section 6: The Role of Democratic Socialists [...] DSA's new document points in another direction, toward the founding of a new progressive movement...a next Left. That is because the political momentum of mass liberalism is depleted. If we once positioned ourselves as the left wing of the possible, there is now no "possible" to be the left wing of. [...] The belief is widespread that we stand at the beginning of a new political era -- that the Left must create a new vision and a new mission rooted in a new sense of purpose.
Yes, that does sound much different than Obama's progressive plan for "change we can believe in" and "spreading the wealth around." Oh wait, no it doesn't.
New Zeal provides insight into another one of Obama's Hyde Park relationships. Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf is a strong supporter of Sen. Obama—he's a member of Rabbis for Obama—and is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Add Rabbi Wood to the list of neighbors (like Bill Ayers) who supported Obama by hosting meet-and-greet fundraisers for the political hopeful in his home.
So who is Rabbi Wolf? Is this another Bill Ayers story? What is the DSA? New Zeal notes that "... despite their innocuous name, [DSA members] are Marxists, extremists, many of them former Communist Party supporters," and points out that "in 1973, Rabbi Wolf served as founding chair of the American Jewish movement 'Breira: A Project of Concern in Diaspora-Israel Relations.'" New Zeal's article covers the organization in depth, but what stood out was Rabbi Wood's recent comments to the Chicago Jewish News: "I met with PLO people as long as 30 years ago. Two of them were assassinated for meeting with me and other Jews. Now I'm careful. I don't want to risk any lives on any side."
PLO—Palestine Liberation Organisation. Assassinated for meeting with him? Sitting down at the table with opposition can apparently have dire consequences (a note to Obama).
"Like a lot of older DSA members, Rabbi Wolf has, what used to be desribed in a more honest era, a 'communist front record as long as your arm,'" New Zeal postulates.
Recently, this blog covered the effects of socialism and communism and looked at how Obama's ideology stacks up. Notably, in one of his Texas campaign offices, more than one flag of militant Che Guevara hangs on the wall, and the now-distanced Bill Ayers proudly displayed his communist roots recently, donning a shirt with the "Che" star. Barack Obama's connections to socialism and communism are there for those who choose to see the truth. While John McCain has faced and fought our enemies, Barack Obama is embraced by them.
American Thinker's Humberto Fontova took a deeper look at Obama's connection with Fidel Castro —and the communist's multiple endorsements of Obama—and praises John McCain's heroic support of our country.
Senator Biden's asinine comment about the forthcoming president's "test" provoked John McCain's quick rejoinder: "I've already been tested." Then that French video of the wounded John McCain in a Hanoi prison came along as stark proof.
While recently endorsing Barack Obama (for the second time), Fidel Castro made a point to insult the brave and grievously wounded man featured in that video as, "a tool of the Miami Mafia." (i.e. Americans of Cuban heritage who refused to serve as Castro's tools, and today overwhelmingly refuse to serve as the Democratic party's "Hispanic outreach" tools.)
Fontova notes that Huffington Post and Daily Kos attempted to cast a former victim of Castro's torture camps as a "terrorist," and lamented his connection with Sen. John McCain.
Let Democrats equate an anti-communist U.S. citizen who honorably stood up to 28 years of torture by sadists serving a Stalinist regime that denounced the U.S. as "a vulture preying on humanity!" and came closest to nuking us, to Bill Ayers. And let that Stalinist regime's dictator endorse their candidate. No Republican campaign ad could make the ramifications of this election any clearer.
And the article explains the source of this connection:
When John McCain addressed a crowd of Bay of Pigs veterans and former Cuban political prisoners last year he learned that he and his fellow POW's in North Vietnam had shared torturers with the Cuban-American freedom fighters then hosting and applauding him, which included the longest-suffering political prisoners in modern history, having suffered prison camps, forced labor and torture chambers for a period three times as long in the Castro/Che Gulag as Alexander Solzhenytzin suffered in Stalin's Gulag.
"Anything that I and my friends might have experienced is nothing - nothing -- compared with what some of the men in this room went through," a gracious John McCain said as many of his hosts misted up.
"I'm introducing a man who suffered the prisons, as I did," said Roberto Martin-Perez, who introduced McCain on the podium. "This honor that's been conferred upon me is not only mine but the thousands of victims who have suffered because of this terrible doctrine' (Communism.)" Senor Martin-Perez suffered 28 years in Castro's Gulag, repeatedly spitting in the face of the Communist torturers who demanded his "confession."
Fontova goes on to discuss the brutality of North Vietnamese torturers who were trained by Castro through his "Cuba Project." The POWs called the worst of their torturers "Fidel."
The communists titled their torture program "the Cuba Project," and it took place during 67-68 primarily at the Cu Loc POW camp (also known as "The Zoo") on the southwestern edge of Hanoi. In brief, this "Cuba Project" was a Joseph Mengelese experiment run by Castroite Cubans to determine how much physical and psychological agony a human can endure before cracking.
While Che Guevara is hailed by some as a heroic rebel, the truth uncovers a cowardly militant who joined forces with a sadistic, would-be dictatator. His mantra propogated extreme, militant violence: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become ..." Those like Bill Ayers seek to follow in his footsteps to overthrow the government in the name of communism. Ayers' goal has never changed, he has merely resigned himself over the last 25 years to another "underground" methodology—communism (disguised as "social justice") implemented under our noses throughout our school systems.
"A profound racism exists in the U.S.," continues Fidel Castro in his Obama-endorsement. "It's a miracle that the Democratic candidate has not suffered the fate of other Americans who dreamed of equality and justice like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King."
For the record: Fidel Castro, forcibly overthrew a black Cuban head of state (Fulgencio Batista) and replaced his government with one where only nine percent of the ruling Stalinist party is black and where the prison population is 80- 90 percent black. He jailed the longest suffering black political prisoner of modern history (Eusebio Penalver who suffered longer in Castro's dungeon's than Nelson Mandela suffered in South Africa's.) He sentenced other blacks (Dr Elias Biscet, Jorge Antunez) to 20 year sentences essentially for quoting Martin Luther King Jr. in a public square.
What is the tie then that binds Castro and Obama? We can explore with a little association: Castro and Hugo Chavez are allies; Bill Ayers and Hugo Chavez are allies; Bill Ayers idolizes Che Guevara and Fidel Castro; Obama has Che Guevara flags hanging in his American campaign offices; Raila Odinga, who Obama supported in Kenya through a series of appearances (and more), named one of his children after Castro, Fidel Castro Odinga. Is this stretching? American Thinker identifies a deeper connection:
Actually, Castroites have been associates of Obama's associates for decades. "I have been affiliated with the Cuba Council of Churches since the 1980s," boasted Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a sermon on July 16, 2006. "I have several close Cuban friends who work with the Cuba Council of Churches and you have heard me preach about our affiliation and the Black Theology Project's trips to Cuba. The Cuban Council of Churches has been a non-partisan global mission partner for decades. I have worked with them for two decades."
"Non-partisan," Reverend Wright? Not according to Cuban intelligence defector Juan Vives, who from hands-on experience reports that the Cuba Council of Churches is in fact an arm of Cuba's ICAP (Instituto Cubano de Amistad con los Pueblos) itself an arm of Cuba's DGI, Cuba's secret police, founded and mentored by the KGB and East German STASI. The ICAP's long-time chieftain was Rene Cruz Rodriguez, perhaps one of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's "friends." [...] This murderer headed a Cuban agency that Jeremiah Wright "worked with for decades" by his own admission, and whose staff he regards as "friends." These "friends," arranged the visit for the Rev. Jesse Jackson's [sic] and his 300 person entourage to Havana in 1984, which included Rev. Wright.
"Viva Fidel!" bellowed Reverend Jackson while concluding his speech at the University of Havana during that visit. "Viva Che Guevara!..Long Live our cry of Freedom!"
It's hard for most Americans (this writer among them) to understand the impact of such evils, to understand what our POWs have suffered, what the Jews suffered at the hands of Hitler, what Cubans suffered at the hands of Guevara and Castro. What we can hopefully understand is that we are not immune to attack—even from within our midst. And that's worth thinking about.
Notable: This post does not detail the torture which POW Lt. Col. Earl Glenn Cobeil suffered at the hands his North Vietnamese captors (including the noted "Fidel" as mentioned in the text) as part of the "Cuba Project"—the full article at American Thinker covers testimony given at Congressional hearings titled, "The Cuban Torture Program; Torture of American Prisoners by Cuban Agents" held November 1999. For more information, you can also visit his entry at ArlingtonCemetery.net.
Melanie Phillips of the Spectator took on a big question in her article, "Is America Really Going to Do This?" Are Americans assessing the merits of each candidate, or are we turning a blind eye on reality?
McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?
When the right begins to talk about Obama's unsavory connections and ideology, the first thing that the left does is to point out that we should be talking about the economy. While we can all agree that the economy is a priority one, how can we disconnect a leader's plan for economics from his plans on foreign policy, ethics and even morality. Can we have a successful economy if America's policies are affecting not only the way we view the world but the way we are viewed by the world? Can we be successful economically if we allow our defenses to recede? Can we be successful as a country if we allow the ideology of our president to erode the foundation of our country—the principles of our Constitution? The American people can rely only on the character of a man to ensure that he will institute and fight for all that he promises. Can Americans put that trust in Barack Obama, or are they better served to entrust the country's leadership to John McCain?
Phillips writes:
Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel – particularly through the ‘settlements’ – is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders – actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ‘Auschwitz borders’.
Obama would thus speak to Iran’s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ‘Zionist’ Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel’s Likud Party ...
Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists’ camp.
Phillips references an article by Daniel Pipes that outlines Obama's connections to "extremist Islam."
... Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."
The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.
The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."
[...] That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.
Americans must ask themselves, if they care about the economy, how Obama's leadership brings about "change" for good. His tax cuts for the middle class are in line with what John McCain is offering. A key difference in the two plans seems to lie in the fact that Barack Obama will issue tax credits. Many middle class Americans—a large force behind Obama—fail to understand what that means. It's a check from the government based solely on your tax bracket, family makeup and other qualifications for "credits." It is not a "refund" of tax paid. It is not a check issued based on whether you've even worked. It is a simply a redistribution of taxes from those who pay them—including the middle class—to those who do not. When Obama says he is for the middle class, he is for redistributing income of working middle and upper class individuals to those in poverty in order to elevate them to the middle class. He is for everyone being the middle class.
Do economy and ideology run in parallel or are they intertwined? Joe Biden feels it's patriotic to pay more taxes. To counter, perhaps it's patriotic to understand how Obama is going to help our economy as well as our country before we decide to vote.
John McCain has pledged his support to make the economy his top priority, to continue to improve education, to invest in alternative energy sources, to help all Americans while upholding our country's Consitution and our security. We cannot have a successful country or economy without good leadership—leadership with conviction and a promise—for change—that we can trust.
Now on the home stretch of this election campaign, we, on the right of center (and on dead center), have watched as so many unexpectedly stepped into the shadow of a would-be leader—a premature and uncertain legend—who, like the Pied Piper, stands ready to lead them away to some unknown place. They've placed their unwavering trust in him. They are mortgaging their children's lives on his promises. They follow him with blind faith against logic and reason, ignoring unanswered questions and failing to pose questions of their own.
But this is not a first in history, and many wiser than we have pointed out that history always repeats itself—if we allow it. Americans though are immune to such things, or so we like to think. We wax poetically of rocket's red glare and bombs bursting in air, finding great pride in the battles of our forefathers, but we know little about what that means. After 9/11, our hearts reached out collectively to pick up the pieces, and several generations were given an idea of what war looks like up close—too close—for the first time.
When my daughter was in fifth grade, she was asked to create a virtual society on paper. She was told she could choose any type of government, any type of economy, any number of races of people to live there and all the very specifics of society. The first task was to learn about the possibilities (note: this was not a project of the "standard" curriculum). So, I helped her research and weigh the pros and cons. I tried not to inject bias, but I did make note of the failings of certain ideologies. (Being an American who enjoys freedom of speech, possibility and opportunity, I am obviously somewhat biased.) Ultimately, she chose democracy and capitalism for reasons of fairness and freedom—the idea of a dictator did not sit well with her, and she did not choose herself as a leader. For the president of her fledging society, she chose a kid from her class—she felt, in fairness, she was not the best choice for that job. I was touched by her honesty and ability to think through the qualifications such a leader would need. She described this certain boy as very fair, always willing to help, honest, reliable, funny and ready to stick up for people: He could always find common ground, but she felt he would never try to dictate to others. The assignment was not graded or judged. It was simply a lesson in thinking—an opportunity to look at the world. It was a lesson that many Americans will never learn. Many of us choose to gamble with the casting of our vote, pulling the lever and hoping for the best.
That virtual world, I'm sure, is thriving today, but I'm not sure America's fate is as safe. Many Americans have failed to take the time, as my daughter did, to understand that character in a leader matters. Many of us are clueless about history, geography and varying forms of government and ideology that exist—and no longer exist—around the world.
Recently Barack Obama has been compared to Karl Marx, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez—socialism and communism. It's been noted that his economic plans and ideas about "spreading the wealth" are socialist. He was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago, but now he claims he is not a socialist. He was named by the National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate—his "composite liberal score" in 2007 was 95.5. The not so gradual incline from 82.5 in 2005 and 86.0 in 2006 indicates that over time Mr. Obama continues to move further and further to left—radically to the left. The National Journal provides a list of votes that were weighed:
NO -- Define a fetus as an "unborn child." August 2. (49-50) L-3
YES -- Make temporary guest workers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. June 6. (57-40) L-3
NO -- Make English the official language of the United States. June 6. (64-33) C-2
YES -- Limit debate on a measure to permit labor union organizers to bypass secret-ballot requirements if a majority of eligible workers sign a union card. June 26. (51-48; 60 votes required to invoke cloture) C-3
YES -- Limit debate on a bill raising the federal minimum wage without providing offsetting tax relief for businesses. January 24. (54-43; 60 votes required to invoke cloture) C-3
YES -- Expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by increasing taxes of those earning more than $1 million. August 1. (36-60) C-2
YES -- Raise the tax rate on income over $1 million and use the revenue to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. March 22. (38-58) C-2
YES -- Require U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq within four months. March 15. (48-50; 60 votes required because of a unanimous consent agreement) C-3
YES -- Limit debate on a proposal to express the sense of Congress to disagree with the president's troop increase in Iraq. February 17. (56-34; 60 votes required to invoke cloture) C-3
[...] Q: How often did Obama vote the liberal position in 2007? Green: He participated in 66 of the 99 votes used for the ratings. He voted the liberal position 65 times. [National Journal Editor Charles Green]
What does this mean for Americans? Do Obama's supporters understand the implications of electing a president who's policies favor an extreme shift from where we are as a country? Is this good change?
If we look to history—and to those who have experienced a similar change—we have the answer. It's time for education, America. It's time to think. It's time for change, because in America, it's always time for change. We are always evolving, growing and improving. Barack Obama is not change—you are the change that we need.
Think, America.
*************
Che Guevara, Castro's right hand man—a Marxist, atheist, socialist, communist: A flag with this man's picture was hanging on the wall in an Obama campaign office in Houston, Texas. Notice the star on Che Guevara's hat—it's a symbol of the Cuban flag and represents socialism and communism. Guess who else wore this symbol recently:
China's Takeover by Communism
Socialism Destroyed Rome / What is Capitalism?
Marx and the Communist Manifesto -- Your Capital
1959: Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged
The wind is blowing only one way at Chicago Tribune.
With now less than two weeks before election day, the liberal media have apparently gotten a little wind up their skirts (or pants, as it were). The ounce of integrity we thought they may have left was carried away on the winds of change. "The One" is breathing it all in—another intoxicating breath of fresh air for the senator, who can seemingly head forward in full sprint at all times while those who drive in for a tackle are effortlessly thwarted. To jump sports analogies, the media are always there to set the pick.
The Chicago Tribune has come out to denounce rumors that Barack Obama is a socialist, citing several sources who seem to find the notion laughable. Certainly Chicagoans know best about the one who has emerged from their midst, so we are expected to disregard all other facts—known truths and blatantly obvious clues—and get in line behind the man with the mouth. But the Chicago Tribune fails to question whether Obama is a communist. And why would they, as they might actually hit the target.
We've seen over and over again on forums liberals arguing "you have no idea what socialism is," "Obama is not a Marxist," "no, he's a neo-Marxist," "he is not a communist" (usually followed by "you're a racist"). Maybe they're right about his not falling into any of these categories, because to say that he is one or another is not accurate—he is all of the above. The ideologies and philosophies are all stepping stones in the Communist manifesto.
We can establish that Obama's views run parallel not only with socialism but with the goals of the Communist Party USA (and likewise the Communist manifesto embraced by Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground). Contrary to all sources cited in the Tribune's article, Obama's roots—from his liberal mother to Kenyan activist father to his early mentor Frank Marshall Davis—can be traced to one singular definition: communism. And whether that goes hand-in-hand with socialism is not a question but merely a distraction.
Obama reveals, in his own words (or as we are to assume are his words, in Dreams from My Father), his closeness to Frank Marshall Davis, who he turns to for counsel. The Canada Free Press notes:
What about Frank Marshall Davis’s role as a mentor to the young Obama? This is one of the assertions that Conybeare’s media council disputes. ... Merriam-Webster defines “mentor” as “a trusted counselor or guide.” Was Frank a “trusted counselor or guide” to Obama? And what “vision” did Davis give to the young Obama? Consider these examples from Obama’s 1995 book, Dreams from My Father:
- Obama’s grandmother (Toot) and Gramps have an argument over whether Gramps should give Toot a ride to work after she had been threatened at a bus stop by a black panhandler. Obama looks to Frank to sort it out in his mind. (p. 89-91) -When Toot is having difficulty convincing the drug-abusing young Obama to apply for college, it is again Frank who is able to convince Obama that college is necessary. (p. 96-98) - Frank delivers to the young Obama the one key lesson which radicals have sought to inculcate in the mind of every black person whether under slavery, segregation or civil rights: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.” (p. 97)
Gerald Horne published, in March, the text of a speech delivered at the reception of the Communist Party USA at the Tamiment Library at New York University, which references Obama's close tie to Frank Marshall Davis:
When these sources are explored, I think scholars of the future will be struck by, for example, the response in Honolulu when tens of thousands of workers went on strike when labor and CP leaders were convicted of Smith Act violations in 1953 – a response totally unlike the response on the mainland. Of course 98% of these workers were of Asian-Pacific ancestry, which suggests that scholars have also been derelict in analyzing why these workers were less anti-communist than their Euro-American counterparts. In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson.
Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside.
The only strategy capable of defeating the ultra-right is the widest possible unity of all the class and social forces whose interests run counter to those of the most reactionary section of the transnationals. Such an all-inclusive coalition would need to be led by labor and the working class in close alliance with the nationally and racially oppressed, women, and youth. It should include seniors, family farmers, the LGBT community, professionals and the self-employed, small business owners, and the disabled—everyone except the most reactionary section of transnational capital. This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party, left and progressive independents who recognize the danger the ultra-right poses, and all social movements on the major issues of our day. This all-people’s front should strive to, and be able to, attract many who voted Republican in the past.
The struggle against the ultra-right, against the most reactionary sector of the transnationals, and for achieving a defeat of its political power is of great significance. However, such a defeat alone will not end the ultra-right danger. There will still be the danger that the most extreme reactionaries, militarists, and racists in our country will seek to impose fascism—an open terrorist dictatorship of big capital. Only the replacement of capitalism—which gives birth to these political trends—by socialism can finally do away with the ultra-right threat.
So, get rid of Republicans, conservatives and capitalism, and roll out socialism. Seems pretty clear. Defines the current force in place behind Obama: Destroy Bush and destroy McCain and all Republicans through association to Bush.
How does the Communist Party USA achieve this?
Grassroots organizing around a program for working people’s needs is key to shift the balance of forces to the left. Building a multiracial, multinational movement and expanding union organization and other movements into the South and rural areas are crucial to overcoming the racism and bigotry utilized by the ultra-right.
The labor movement has made significant shifts in its organization and outlook, and now leads many coalitions for progress and change, and leads defensive struggles against the attacks of the corporations and the ultra-right. Labor’s intensified participation in electoral struggles has resulted in the election of thousands of union members to office, the creation and development of labor’s own independent political apparatus, and better communication with, education of, and mobilization of union membership. Increased efforts to organize workers, to build relationships with allies, and to fight in the political arena have made labor the key element of most major progressive coalitions and election campaigns. The struggle for the unity of the labor movement on issues must be the foundation on which the broadest coalition can be built. ... The Communist Party, as part of the developing all-peoples front to defeat the ultra-right, participates fully with the labor movement and its allies in building a strong people’s electoral force.
Further, to defeat "monopolies," the Party lists the following goals:
The building of a mass people’s party capable of contending for governmental power, a party free of domination by any monopoly interests;
Removal from the electoral system of the financial contributions of monopolies, to be replaced by public funding and guarantees of honest elections where each vote counts and all votes are counted;
Replacing the foreign policy of preemptive strikes and dictating to the world in the interests of U.S.-based transnationals with a policy of international cooperation to solve problems of war and aggression, poverty, education, environment, health, and development;
Full restoration and expansion of the Bill of Rights and all democratic rights; the complete separation of church and state;
Full legal protection from hate crimes and racial profiling, and the outlawing of oral and written racist propaganda;
Implementation of affirmative action and compensatory programs to achieve actual equality for the racially and nationally oppressed and women;
Prevention of the “freedom” of monopolies to move assets in ways that harm workers and communities without full compensation; the guaranteed right to a job at living wages or full income through public works and public service jobs; the growth of public ownership of industries;
Elimination of management prerogatives coupled with the expansion of workers and union rights to prevent socially harmful management decisions;
Full funding for education, affordable housing programs, day care, Social Security, a universal health care program, youth job training and recreation programs, and cultural programs;
Creation of a social fund starting at $200 billion to make up for past and continuing wrongs and to help achieve equality in facilities and infrastructure for communities of the racially and nationally oppressed;
No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations;
Military budget slashed to a fraction of current spending; and,
All media to be free of monopoly ownership.
Many of these will be checked off the list fairly immediately with an Obama presidency. And, finally, the tie to socialism. It's spelled out clearly as a stepping stone to a ensure a communist government:
Socialism will solve many of the intractable problems of capitalism, and provide the mechanisms for solving others over time. Once human need replaces greed and private profit as the driving force of the economy, once working people can together make decisions about the priorities of society, once serious steps to end exploitation and oppression are being implemented, once the people remove the power of the transnationals from the U.S. political system, then we can begin real, humane problem solving.
The Communist Party seeks to build socialism in the United States based on the revolutionary traditions and struggles of the people of our country. From before the start of the American Revolution up to today, workers, low-income people, and their allies have struggled to create and extend democracy. ... Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of society, but we don’t think that social and economic development will end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a higher phase—communism—where the capitalist class and all classes will have disappeared, replaced by a commonwealth of all working people, and where national and racial enmity and prejudice will be things of the past. In communist society, the essentials of life will be plentiful and readily available to all, and the repressive apparatus of government will wither away leaving purely administrative functions. In the communist phase of society, social production and distribution of wealth would be according to the principals of the motto, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote, “In place of the old bourgeois [capitalist] society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
It's almost as if Obama's entire campaign were based on this same manifesto—oh, wait, a thought occurred, what was it. Oh, let's just get back to the MSM, it's so much easier to believe.
If you need more evidence, the mainstream has finally begun to cover the fact that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party:
Barack Obama's childhood mentor 'Frank' member of socialist party and a pornographer (Part 1):
Barack Obama's childhood mentor 'Frank' member of socialist party and a pornographer (Part 2):
The Chicago Tribune—and, apparently, many socialist leaders—would like us to believe—against all logic—that Obama is not a socialist. You decide.
Still finding it hard to believe, but Philip J. Berg of ObamaCrimes.com issued a press release today detailing that by way of failure to respond, Obama and the DNC admit all allegations of the Federal Court lawsuit. The question remains on how this affects the election. But interesting to see Obama's tactics put to good use—he won his first seat by having his competitors disqualified. As usual, he doesn't seem to think the laws apply to him.
From the Press Release:
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
A partial list of this admissions includes:
OBAMA - Admitted: 1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya. 6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham. 7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery. 8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen. 9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. 10. I was not born in Hawaii. 11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii. 12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii. 13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii. 14. I am a citizen of Indonesia. 15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status. 16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen. 17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961. 18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends. 19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan. 20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. 21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country. 22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. 23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan. 24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen. ... 36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen. 37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States. 38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia. 39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya. 40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law. 41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth. 42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963. 43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen. 44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means. 45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii. 46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya. .. 50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. 51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama. 52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. 53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro. 54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law. 55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office. 56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America. DNC - Admitted: 1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama. 3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama. 4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. 6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen. 7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii. 8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status. ... 19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen. 20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign. 21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States. 22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis. 23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution. 24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution. 25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. 26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans. 27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
Get the press release and full details about the case here.
It was a busy day for the political campaigns, with Joe Biden issuing possibly his biggest gaffe (read: truth) yet about the international crisis that an Obama presidency will bring about (oh wait, is there press in here?). Plus a new recording connecting Bill Ayers and Obama on their relationship and ideology.
Here's a short recap sans commentary:
Bill Ayers interview:
For fun, here's a great breakdown of the Obama tax plan at work—in a three-guys-walked-into-a-bar kind of format: Friday office email.
A look at the varying faces supporting John McCain—in their own words.
The 2008 election year has seen voters split and split again along lines of ideology and cause, race and religion, hopes and dreams—and change. Ultimately we're all Americans expressing our voice as only Americans can.
Below are the voices of just a few of those who support Senator John McCain for president. What they share in common is that they're Americans first, they refuse to be separated along lines of gender, race or religion and most importantly, they know that John McCain can deliver the change that is needed for all Americans.
There are those of us who see through the frenzied media machine that is Barack Obama. We choose to look beyond his carefully crafted words, because we cannot take him at his word; beyond dramatic posters, because we do not buy into media hype; beyond skin color, origin or ethnicity, because we don't choose our leaders based on appearance. We want a president who is strong, capable and most importantly ready to fight to ensure that we, as Americans, all have the opportunity to live in a country of amazing freedoms, democracy and opportunity.
Obama has tried to squirrel away his history, but Americans are digging for the truth.
Bill Ayers and Barack Obama worked together to fund ACORN, Trinity United church (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and other left-wing organizations. But to understand why, you have to dig a little deeper and examine the roots of the ACORN tree—they connect to the communist manifesto of a misguided youth-cum-professor, his communist comrades and a Harvard lawyer who found the spirit of "change" in their cause.
Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, turns out to be one of Ayers' radical friends from the '60s. Both Ayers and Rathke were members of the Student Democratic Society (SDS), which later gave way to the Weathermen faction and ultimately the Weather Underground.
In St. Louis, dogs join the dead on the election rolls. In 2000, voters nationwide let out a collective gasp in the waning hours of Election Day. Lawyers for Jesse Jackson and Al Gore convinced judges in St. Louis to keep polls open in selected African-American neighborhoods, altering election law by extending voting hours for those most likely to support Gore...
A common thread in many of the cases that Fund spotlights is the shadowy presence of Acorn. ... In St. Louis, eight Acorn workers pled guilty to election fraud this past April. On the other side of Missouri, in 2006, four Kansas City Acorn workers were indicted after officials deemed nearly 15,000 of their 35,000 registrations phony.
In the mid-nineties, Barack Obama ran Acorn’s Project Vote campaign in Illinois. He sued the state of Illinois on the group’s behalf in 1995 to implement the Motor Voter law. “After he joined the board of the Woods Fund,” Stealing Elections notes, “Obama saw to it that substantial grants were given to Acorn.” Senator Obama has championed Acorn’s legislative priorities in Congress. His presidential campaign even donated more than $800,000 to Acorn...
For those who still think Obama's relationship with Ayers was irrelevant, consider that the views of a communist radical have already been woven into our education system—Obama helped Ayers to fund his education programs, and Ayers has published a series of books for educators. (Is it a coincidence that Obama is already starting to pop up in children's school books?) Americans need to understand that Obama's connections to this entire group of people is certainly no coincidence. What we need to understand is that Bill Ayers—the "respected" professor— is not a reformed terrorist but rather a devoted communist rebel who simply found a new course of action. We should not look at Obama's association with Ayers—instead we should ask ourselves: Why Obama? Why did Ayers choose Obama? Why did Ayers, who hates the United States government, support Obama's rise to the top—even launching his career from his own living room? The answers lie not in Obama's association with Ayers but Ayers' selection of the man that stands before America asking for our vote.
But how does this affect the economy? If you're reading this, you're likely someone who already understands how Obama's communist, Marxist, socialist grooming affects not only our economy but the future of our country. Electing Obama is a vote for socialism. It's a vote for communism. It's a vote for the destruction of America as we now know it.
Let's try an Obama-ism here: Americans are smart enough to understand that we need the truth. Americans are smart enough to understand that communism is un-American. Americans are smart enough to see through the lies of a smooth-talking agent. Americans are proud and hard-working, and we need to worry first about our government. We are smart enough not be swindled by a man with no experience and empty promises of "change." Just words? Just words? America. Just words?
