Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has
gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again!
Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack
Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is
weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions
to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient
Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese
again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept.
11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing
for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of
colonization.
Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why
are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe?
(And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the
French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me
be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue
for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality
continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of
being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't
have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying,
"I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses
to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to
cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's
invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience,"
while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling
to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq.
Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of
choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on
9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim
countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who
did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary
War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the
Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on
teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can
think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi
women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the
Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended
to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2
years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded
the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a
way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology
sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder
on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with
the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their
own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be
liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an
American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The
war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim
audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring
Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo,
Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while
attacking (brace yourself) America for helping remove Iranian loon
Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that
agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection
of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying
something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink
pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of
permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells,
where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to
operate them pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored
Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament
-- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting
prime minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused
to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's
choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal
academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican
president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal
blowhards as John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest
accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have
weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation
-- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear
power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic
delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one
nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's
was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North
Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities
and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they
wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North
Koreans began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for,
again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a
primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top
of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not
enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it
weren't so terrifying.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
The sky is falling!
How Obama's administration plays on fear
Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I'm a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space?
I ask because I'm trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.
"Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times right after the election. "They are opportunities to do big things."
Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, "Never waste a good crisis." Then President Barack Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is "great opportunity in the midst of" the "great crisis" befalling America...
Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as ideological evidence that Obama's budget priorities are a great bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he's focusing on selling his long-standing liberal agenda on health care, energy and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some—particularly on Wall Street—would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
But those policies aren't the real scandal, even though they're bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power-grabs. (It seems writer Randolph Bourne was wrong. It is not war, but crisis, that is the health of the state.)
Michael Kinsley famously said that a gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. As they say, it's funny because it's true.
But the White House tactic isn't funny at all. It's scary. Its amorality is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it all.
Recall that not long ago, the first item on the bill of indictment against the Bush administration was that it was "exploiting" Sept. 11, 2001, to enact its agenda. Al Gore shrieked that President George W. Bush "played on our fears" to get his way. In response to nearly every Bush initiative, from the USA Patriot Act to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, critics would caterwaul that Bush was taking advantage of the country's fear of terrorism.
The Bush administration always denied this, and rightly so. If the president admitted that he was using a national calamity for narrow partisan or ideological advantage, it would be outrageous. Indeed, every time Karl Rove or some other administration official said anything that could be even remotely interpreted as using the war or Sept. 11 for partisan or ideological gain, the editorial pages and Democratic news-release factories churned into overdrive with righteous indignation.
Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting—boasting!—that they want to exploit a national emergency to further their pre-existing agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.
It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering.
Franklin Roosevelt said that all we have to fear is fear itself. Now, Obama tacitly admits that all he has to fear is the loss of fear itself.
In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it's taking advantage of a historic opportunity.
Obama's defenders respond to this argument by stating that the president's motives are decent, noble and pure. He wants to help the uninsured and the poorly educated. He wants to make good on his vow to halt those rising oceans.
But this is just a rationalization. Every president thinks his agenda is what's best for the country; every politician believes his motives are noble. The point is that scaring people about X in order to achieve Y is fundamentally undemocratic.
This was transparently obvious to Bush's harshest critics, who alleged that Sept. 11 was merely a convenient crisis for devious neocons who wanted to topple Hussein all along. But it's now clear that many of these critics simply objected to the agenda, not the alleged tactics. Now that it's their turn, they see nothing wrong with doing what they so recently condemned.
"We
realize Obama is a Cook County Illinois anti-patriotic scumbag
politician...
the question is, how could anyone with a brain in their head get themselves to vote
for this "wolf in sheep's clothing' commie in disguise?
Obama
is the first U.S. President voted in because "stupid people"
now are the majority Voters in our country. Heaven help our Capitalist
Democracy!"
APFTE
Professor
Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the
Presidential election:
Number
of States won by:
Democrats:
19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats:
580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats:
127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats:
13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In
aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the
country. Democrat
territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government owned tenements and living off various forms of
government welfare..."
Olson
believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor
Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of
the nation's population already having reached the
"governmental dependency" phase.
If
Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called "illegal aliens" and they vote, then we
can say goodbye to the USA we all know now in as little as five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, do
nothing.
If you are not, then pass this information along to help
everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that
Voter apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Unfettered leftist
control of the United States cost Obama a mere $700 million in highly
suspect campaign contributions from undisclosed foreign donors.
Obama’s old senate seat
won’t bring in that kind of cash, but it’s worth something... Right?
The AP reports, Ill.
Gov. arrested in Obama successor probe. For what? Just trying
to cash in on appointing Obama’s senate replacement? Since when is
private profiteering from political corruption a crime in Democratic
politics, especially in Chicago?
FBI investigators allege that
Chicago is “the most corrupt
system in American politics.” No – duh!
Have they looked at how Obama
won his Chicago congressional seat, his U.S. Senate seat or the White
House by using the well-oiled Chicago
Machine to eliminate all of his opponents?
Come on folks!
You were warned repeatedly
about the long history of deep Chicago style political corruption at the
epicenter of Obama’s entire adult life. He was groomed for years by
people like Williams Ayers, Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson, Tony Rezko,
and Mayor Daley’s Chicago Machine, including Rahm Emanuel and David
Axelrod.
You
said it didn’t matter....
The
list of unanswered Obama questions is endless.
Why
so many ill-advised associates for so many years?
Why
are you spending a million dollars in legal fees to avoid showing a
birth certificate?
Who
is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden) and why was he raising
money for your Harvard education?
Why
have you refused to release your college records at Occidental,
Columbia and Harvard?
Why
won’t you release a full list of donors responsible for more than
$200 million in overseas campaign contributions?
How
did you pay for college with no job and no record of student loans
on your tax returns?
I can keep going for a few
pages, but you get the point.
Is
Blagojevich just a fall guy to keep everyone too busy to ask the kingpin
of Chicago political power any serious questions before his
international crowning on January 20th?
Chicago
Machine Goes to Washington DC
“Blagojevich
also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance
to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley
Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state
assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's
editorial board who had been critical of him fired.” From
the AP Story
Imagine that! Threatening the
mainstream news media in an overt effort to manipulate favorable media
coverage of the Chicago Machine?
Where have we heard this
story before?
Don’t worry; this kind of thing won’t be necessary once the “Fairness
Doctrine” is in place.
Get real... The Chicago
Machine is about to march into unfettered and unchecked left-wing power
in Washington DC.
Exactly what kinds of
“change” did you expect these people to bring again?
Need I remind you that
Blagojevich was elected as a “change agent” to clean up the Chicago
political sewer? It is Obama’s senate seat we are discussing here, ya
know... Obama spin doctors are out in force trying to distance the messiah-elect
from the current crap storm back home.
But Chicago political
corruption is not only systemic within the Democrat Party and the Obama
campaign, its world renowned...
This
is just the beginning. As the Chicago Machine rolls into Washington DC,
“change” is here! How do you like it so far?
Major
National Catastrophe!Barack Hussein ObamaGets Elected!
The
Beginning Of The End Of The America We Know Today.Overwhelming
support for the socialist predisposed Candidate Obama!
Racism
Brings Black Voters To The Polls In Record Numbers!
Proving
once and for all that many Blacks can be just as racist or even more
racist than any other group. No other race votes over 95 percent
for a candidate their own color. LINK
This
should bring an end to any more hate speech and whining about "Whitey",
"Honkys", "Crackers" or the "White
Devils" keeping the Black Man down... but it won't.
Notice to All Employees
As of November 5, 2008, when President Obama is officially elected into office, our companies will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally among all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake."
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all."
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic."
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flat screen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink your vote on November 4th…
APFTE
Note: It's too late now though, we just have to survive Obama's Socialism
until another Capitalist is elected someday.
Majority
fools...
This has
been an historic week -- for two reasons.
First, and
most notable, more than 57 million American Patriots showed up to
vote on Tuesday -- this despite having been swamped with Leftmedia
reports fawning over the messianic Barack Obama, reports that the
election was over, and reports that John McCain was defeated.
Obama victory
celebration -- true colors In the face of all the negatives, 57
million of our countrymen did what Patriots always do -- put country
first and cast their vote for what is good and right about our great
nation. We were unified by our recognition that the high office of
the presidency deserves a man of great and demonstrable character.
We were unified by the knowledge that constitutional integrity is
dependant upon the selection of Supreme Court judges who will abide
by the plain language of our Constitution rather than amend it by
judicial diktat. We understand that if we are not a nation of laws,
a republic, then we are a nation of men imposing their will upon
others, a democracy. The latter always leads to tyranny.
John
McCain was beset by the worst economic crisis in decades (the direct
result of Democrat legislation to undermine free enterprise by
rigging mortgage markets), a sitting president who has been
relentlessly demeaned and atrociously attacked by liberals and their
media, and costly but essential wars on two major fronts, which the
public has been told should not be fought. (When was the last time
any liberal openly pondered the consequences had we not launched OEF
and OIF?)
Yet, of
the 120 million ballots cast on Tuesday, McCain would be our
president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground
states opted for him instead of Barack Obama. (Just imagine what the
political landscape would look like if the mass media was composed
of objective journalists rather than Leftist campaign hacks.)
Second,
this has been an historic week because a majority of American voters
were lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a
state of what is best described as "cult worship," with
all its attendant deception. Never before has the collective idiocy
of a nation been so galvanized in support of one of their own,
Barack Hussein Obama.
In his
victory speech Tuesday night, Obama said, "If there is anyone
out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things
are possible ... tonight is your answer. It's been a long time
coming, but tonight ... change has come to America. This victory
alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to
make that change."
Ah yes,
"change" -- a euphemism for constitutional abrogation.
BO's mantra -- can you smell it?
What
follows are a few other observations from this "historic
week."
Trudging
through the smoldering debris of Tuesday's O-bomb, I have completed
my post mortem. Unlike all the party punditry, who tend to form
circular firing squads, here is a viewpoint far removed from the
ubiquitous opinions of Beltway political hacks and media
talkingheads.
First,
when the Democrats ran the most uber-leftist member of their party,
Republicans thought they could run a centrist who could make the
case that he swings both ways. Unfortunately, in a time when
Congress has far lower ratings than the historically low ratings of
the sitting president, a centrist who is indistinguishable from the
problem is not perceived to be the solution, no matter how great his
patriotic pedigree.
Second,
McCain ran his campaign like George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Bill
Clinton defeated him. Who can forget Bush, in the last debate with
Clinton, looking with disdain at his watch as if to say, "Are
we done yet?"
McCain
campaigned as if he had it won. He campaigned as a diplomat, not a
warrior, and diplomats get their hindquarters kicked by warriors. He
called himself a "maverick" (if I never hear that word
again it will be too soon), and, indeed, he was once a great
warrior, but after 22 years in the Senate, the "house of
lords," the "deliberative body," he had lost his
warrior spirit.
On the
other hand, Obama approached this campaign as if he had been steeped
in the effluent of radical Socialism, racism and anti-American
sentiments since birth. He did what modern liberals do best: foment
discontent, anger, division, greed, victimization ... you know the
routine.
By the
time McCain figured out that he'd have to rekindle his inner warrior
spirit, it was too late.
Of course, then
came the housing collapse and the subsequent stock market crash, and
the credit crisis, followed by cascading consumer confidence, and
the inevitable Leftmedia blaming of the party of McCain.
But there
was one more major factor. Unlike 2004, there was no video message
from al-Qa'ida's Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election; no
message to remind Americans that we are one terrorist nuke away from
a toasted urban center.
Osama's
"October Surprise" shaved decisive votes from John Kerry's
lead in just three days. One might conclude that Osama wised up this
time around, in order to get his man elected. Tuesday was a happy
day for jihadis around the world, but a sad one for those in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Citizens of these two countries have, with a little
help from our Armed Forces, tasted freedom for the first time in
decades, and they now fear an American retreat, the implications of
which are dire for the entire region.
One final
observation: Some have suggested that this campaign was all about
class warfare, rich v. poor. Indeed, that was a core message, but
this campaign was really about dirt v. concrete. Obama received most
of his support from urbanites, as one can clearly discern from all
those county-by-county maps of election results.
Seems the
further away some folks get from the self-sufficiency of the land,
the more inclined they are to become dependent on the state.
However, the fact is that concrete dwellers are completely dependent
on the production of suburban and rural areas of our nation, those
areas that are firmly under Patriot control. (Don't repeat this,
because it causes a lot of heartburn among the majority of city folk
who have surrendered to serfdom.)
So, for
all those mindless minions whose heads have been stuck in the O-zone
for the last year: You got what you wanted. Now what?
You recall
that the only power that politicians have is the power to collect
and redistribute wealth -- to tax and spend. I heard once that there
was a great revolution over this issue, something about taxation
without representation...
Consider how
many times Obama has said that he thinks "people who have done
well like me" should pay higher taxes. If that is the case,
then why didn't he? I checked, and The One has never paid a dime
more in taxes than the minimum required by law.
In regard
to Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others, in his
infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just
because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a
socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist
because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!"
Of course,
Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead,
he's proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary,
and give it to someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption
that you aren't charitable enough to share it yourself.
However,
exhibiting that most universal of traits common to liberals,
hypocrisy, it turns out that the Obamas reported an average annual
income of more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, but they gave a
measly two percent of their income for charitable purposes.
So much
for "spreading the wealth around."
Regarding
constitutional liberty, Obama has twice taken an oath to
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear
true faith and allegiance to the same."
He does not
honor that oath because he subscribes to the errant notion of a
"Living Constitution" which, in his own words,
"breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by
the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."
Clearly, as the
next commander in chief, he has no intention of honoring his
presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States," but I suspect most of our
uniformed Patriots will.
Obama's
executive, legislative and judicial agendas pose a greater threat to
American liberty than that of any president in the history of our
great republic. He'll likely appoint two or even three left-wing
jurists to the High Court in his first (and we hope only) term.
Expect a
concerted effort by the executive, legislative and judicial branches
to undermine the First, Second and Tenth Amendment rights of
citizens, and restrictions on the central government.
However, Obama
and his radical Leftists should not underestimate the concern tens
of millions of my fellow Patriots share about the assault on our
Constitution that will ensue on 20 January 2009. When the next
administration commences to trample on our Constitution -- and they
will -- they risk the potential of civil disobedience at least equal
in proportion to the degree of constitutional violation.
Thomas Jefferson
insisted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Could Americans
take up arms against each other, Patriots in defense of our
Constitutional Republic? Surely not again. However, anyone who
thinks this prospect is preposterous should put their ear closer to
the ground.
Many American
Patriots believe, as did Thomas Paine, "If there must be
trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
Speaking
of concerns, have you read about Barack Obama's "National
Service Plan," which he proposed because, in his words,
"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's
just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the
military]"? This is his version of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps,
and it is an Orwellian plan to employ legions of his sycophants in
the service of his administration. He proposes spending more on this
"plan" than our current budget for national defense.
As for our
national security in the next four years, what new can I say about
this issue? Well, just this: I wonder how the election of Obama will
affect military recruitment, enlistments and re-enlistments? Slim
prospects for jobs in the private sector may prop up the military
census, but in the unlikely event that Obama backs off his
tax-and-spend agenda, and the economy improves, military recruiters
will have their work cut out.
Some are
insisting that liberals can't keep playing the race card now that a
black man has been elected president (even though less than half of
Obama's family line is of African origin). But liberals are totally
dependent on cultivating constituencies of victims in order to
perpetuate their tenure in public office. As long as there is a
Democrat in Washington, they will continue to insist that the nation
is replete with racial and social injustice (which, they fail to
tell us, is the result of liberal economic and social policies), and
that the only salvation for the victims of such injustice is, you
guessed it, to re-elect the liberals who perpetuate it.
While 95 percent
of blacks voted for Barack Obama, it should be noted that one of the
most courageous groups of people in the entire nation is the four
percent of black men and women who voted for John McCain. One of
these Patriots lives on my street, and he told me recently that back
when "the black community" found out he voted against Bill
Clinton, it cost him and his family dearly. That notwithstanding, he
displayed a McCain/Palin sign in front of his house and voted
accordingly.
On
Election Day, another neighbor, who apparently had a few Patriot
essays forwarded to her, felt compelled to write me a note defending
her support for Obama: "I am a very patriotic person, a
post-college/graduate school educated person, a consistent
churchgoer and dedicated mother, a firm believer in a woman's right
to choose, and a strong Democrat."
I mention
the above only to include the last line of her note: "There are
a lot of people in our community who feel the same way I do."
After all, isn't this all about "feelings"?
Ask
liberals about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example,
why they support charlatans like Obama, the Clintons, Albert Arnold
Gore, John Kerry, et al. -- and invariably they will tell you how
they feel. That's why you can't reason with them. Logic and emotions
are like oil and water.
Fortunately,
the majority of my community, my state and my region of our great
nation cast their votes on the basis of reason, logic and good
judgment, not "feelings."
Finally,
as I ponder the "historic changes" of the past week, my
first response has been to pray. I know many of you are responding
likewise.
This
battle is lost, but the war is not. Stand firm, Patriots. Stand
ready. Let's roll.
In response to
increasing efforts by local market journalists to ask the questions
the national media refuse to ask, Barack
Obama and Joe Biden are growing furious at news reporters who have
the audacity to label Obama’s socialist “wealth
redistribution” campaign as “socialism”...
Obama and
Biden’s entire campaign is based upon government confiscation and
re-distribution of private earned wealth, -“over-taxing
those according to their ability; and redistributing confiscated
wealth according to politically motivated deceptions of need...”
Karl
Marx, the father of
“SOCIALISM” explained exactly what socialism is...
“From each,
according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”
According to Marx,
the father of socialism, this is the definition of socialism! Yet
Obama and Biden stand bold faced and proclaim before the world that
they are not selling socialism. The world knows what they are selling.
But many Obama supporters don’t know and don’t seem to care.
Is it possible
that many Americans have never heard of socialism before?
Obama
and Biden Understand
Both long-time
students of famous American communists like Saul
Alinsky, Frank
Marshall Davis, William Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright with
his variety of commiecommunity activism, both Obama and Biden embrace the teachings of
Karl Marx.
In addition to the
concept of robbing some citizens of their “pursuit of happiness”
in order to promise government issued happiness for Obama campaign
constituents, they subscribe to Marx’s notion that – “Democracy
is the road to socialism.”
Through the
exploitation of economic, gender and racial
class warfare, a “proletariat” army of average citizens can be
mobilized in a unified attack upon the nation’s most productive minority, robbed
of their belongings and reduced to equal
status with the non-productive.
They call this
“economic equality” or “economic justice.”
But the people who
authored this political agenda call it socialism,
and in America, it is done by
quasi-democratic process, aka Democratic
Socialism.
The
Power of the Useful Idiot
If you don’t
know what socialism is, or what the founding American principles and
values are for that matter, then you are in no position to protect and
defend the United States of America from an enemy within.
When you are
selling freedom and liberty down the river in exchange for central
political power, it’s best to restrict your audience to only poor,
ill-educated or well-indoctrinated constituents. True patriots of
freedom can smell a rat from halfway around the globe.
In recent months I
have received tons of reader mail from young leftist ideologues
cheering the end of American capitalism and clamoring for a new age of
socialist change. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by Castro
and Chavez to believe in some kinder-gentler
form of tyranny.
But I have also
received reader mail from self-styled “conservatives” who can’t
tell the difference between unbridled socialism and moral
social conscience. One seeks to empower the politician; the other
seeks to care for those unable to care for themselves.
Blissful ignorance
is a powerful tool for anyone willing to exploit it for their own
agenda. In this case, democracy may indeed be the road to socialism. The American people
do have the power to trade individual freedom for socialism, if they
so desire. The democratic process can be used either to preserve or to
destroy.
Exploiting
the Weak and well-Indoctrinated
“For
the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by
him.”
Karl
Marx
Most
Americans would choose a bullet in the head over communism, if that
were the only choices available. So, the trick is to manipulate
Americans into thinking they have another option.
After years of
failed attempts to get the Communist
Party or Socialist Party off
the ground in America, leadership in the movement adopted a different,
much more successful strategy.
Unable to compete
openly with Americas two powerful political party’s nationally on
the merit of communist and socialist principles and values, leaders in
the movement decided to work from within one of the two parties.
As both communism
and socialism prey on the proletariat
(working class) for political power, the old “party of the people”
seemed like the best party to work within.
The Democratic
Socialists of America was formed as a spin-off of the Socialist
Party USA for the stated purpose of working from inside the Democrat
Party through its legislative arm, the Progressive
Congressional Caucus, which now has more than sixty members seated
in congress, all of whom played a significant roll in causing the
current financial crisis.
Through
incremental victories from within the power structure of the Democrat
Party, over an extended period, the Communist Party and Socialist
Party agenda would be advanced below the radar of the average American
voter, many of whom still vote Democrat just because their parents
did, or because their fellow union employees do.
These voters have
no idea what they are actually supporting in today’s Democrat Party,
even though the Democratic Socialists of America have been very open
about their plans and their advances.
In a PDF file
issued by the Democratic Socialists of America, they answer the
question,
Both Obama and
Biden continue to talk about “redistribution of wealth” in their
campaign, while denying that “redistribution of wealth” is
“socialism.”
The
facts are clear and indisputable. Listening to Obama or Biden on the
campaign stump is exactly like listening to Karl Marx, Saul
Alinsky, Frank
Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. These men
are Obama’s life-long heroes and mentors... That’s why they
matter!
But
even Karl Marx himself said, “I am not a Marxist.” This was a true statement, by the way...
Karl Marx wasn’t a “Marxist.” He was a “communist.” – “In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow
horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe
on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according
to his needs.” Karl Marx
Marxism, named
after Marx, was simply the new more marketable face of communism.
Likewise,
Obama and Biden are selling Democratic Socialism. But Democratic Socialism is just the newest
marketing name for socialism, Marxism, which is the kinder-gentler
marketing term for communism.
The lie in the
leftist campaign is the notion that socialism/communism are somehow
acceptable, if achieved via democratic process. But it’s actually
worse... Being thrust into chains by force is one thing; but voting
yourself into bondage is something quite different...
Obama’s
Final Plea for “Change!”
“The
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world
to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!”
This was Obama’s
opening message to a massive audience from a rock concert stage in
Germany, when he launched what is effectively an international
campaign funded largely by foreign money from undisclosed sources.
It is also his
“closing argument” in the final days of his campaign. But this
quote came from Karl Marx... It’s only been adopted by Barack Obama.
This next quote
belongs to Marx as well, a warning to all who desire individual
freedom and liberty...
“Let the ruling
classes tremble at a communist [Obama] revolution.”
If you are a
self-reliant productive American, working hard to pursue the dream of
freedom and liberty, YOU are the “ruling class” in America!
For you, socialism
is the problem, not the solution. Past social spending has bankrupted
every sector of our federal government and now it threatens to bring
our entire economy crashing down. Our current financial crisis is the
direct result of the Progressive Congressional Caucus forcing American
lenders to make loans on the basis of “need” rather than
“qualifications.”
If you think
it’s an accident, you need to study The
Cloward-Piven Strategy, written by Obama’s Columbia University
heroes of the 1960s.
Yet according to
all the current election polls, Americans are looking to Obama’s Democratic
Socialism to solve the economic crisis which was caused by past
socialist policies... Polls indicate that most Americans trust Obama
more than McCain when it comes to dealing with the economic woes
created by Democrats.
Americans had
better wake up and fast! Or they will wake up on November 5th
in a country they no longer recognized!
It’s
all out in the open, right under your nose. What does it say about you
if you still can’t see it?
Obama’s
Radical Agenda Exposed
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is...
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions even though Ahmadinejad has promised to "wipe Israel off the map" and destroy America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election", Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children, children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an "F" on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply "bitter" and he has mocked us saying "[they] cling to their guns and their religion."
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a shock and awe strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama
Scott Wheeler
National
Republican Trust Political Action Committee
You couldn't get a new job at McDonalds and become District Manager after only 143 Days of experience...
You couldn't become Chief of Surgery after 143 days of experience of being a Surgeon...
You couldn't get a job as a Teacher and be the Superintendent after 143 Days of experience...
You couldn't join the military and become a Colonel after 143 days of experience...
You couldn't get a job as a Reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience...
Would you hire a new
employee and after only 143 days of experience let him run your company
and have total control?
BUT....
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the Time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee,
he logged 143 days of "experience" in the Senate. That's how many days
the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of "work
experience," Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader Of The Free World....
just 143 days...
Now, we all have to start somewhere. The Senate is a good start, but after 143 Days, that's all it
really is, just a start. Obama has a long way to go before he's
qualified to influence all our lives the way he insists upon doing if
elected. (Would you let him
even manage your families finances? Would you buy a used car from
the man? Does the name Tony Rezko ring a bell?)
Strangely... a large sector of the American public is okay with this and
campaigning for him.
We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet Some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol! So much for the level of common sense these days...
It’s
the Power Over the People,
Stupid
Today’s DNC does
not represent “the power of the people,” but rather a
new power over the people. Howard Dean is the new sheriff in town
and a new power base for the party came with him.
Essentially, Bill
and Hillary were told to “stand down.” They were told to “step
aside” and to make room for the new “charismatic Messiah.” Once
the Obama nomination was secured, they were told that they would support
Obama-Biden, even though that would require them to swallow their pride
and ambition, and completely reverse course from everything they had
stood for previously.
What kind of power
can make the two most powerful people in the party take the stage on
behalf of those who derailed their future? It was members of the
Progressive Democrat (aka Socialist) Caucus who told Bill and Hill it
was time to shut up and sit down.
Line up behind Obama or else...
Through their
congressional arm, the Democratic Socialists of America now openly control 64 members of
congress and the list is a who’s
who of Democrat Party power.
These are the
folks now in control of the Democrat Party and both houses of congress.
Those who have worked in the halls of congress to undermine American
economic and security interests here and abroad and they appear on this
list of extreme left-wing Socialists. Those who replaced Hillary Clinton
with Barack Obama also appear on this list, excluding party Chairman
Howard Dean and high profile leaders like Pelosi and Reid, who dare not
formally appear on the list.
This
is pretty
"strong
medicine".
One thing
about us
conservatives,
we spell
out our
reasoning
and define
our
stances on
political
issues.
We are not
afraid to
put forth
our agenda
in a very
clear and
concise
manner so
that
everyone
can
understand
how we
stand on
the
issues.
This is a
long read
(about 5
minutes)
but if you
really
care about
the future
of our
country
you will
read it to
the end,
even my
liberal
friends
who I have
also sent
this to.
We can
discuss
our
differences
and our
thoughts
about
"change"
over less
life
changing
or history
changing
environments
but this
election
is no
laughing
matter and
our
historical
future is
in the
balance.
Please
read this
and if you
agree,
pass it
on.
If you do
not agree
please
promise
that
before you
take great
pleasure
in
canceling
my vote
that you
have done
your
homework
(as I
have) and
vote for
the
candidate
that you
know in
your heart
of hearts
will best
reflect
the heart
and the
will of
this great
nation.
Joe
Dear
Friends:
My name
is Joe
Porter.
I live
in
Champaign
,
Illinois
. I'm 46
years
old, a
born-again
Christian,
a
husband,
a
father,
a small
business
owner, a
veteran,
and a
homeowner.
I don't
consider
myself
to be
either
conservative
or
liberal,
and I
vote for
the
person,
not
Republican
or
Democrat.
I don't
believe
there
are
"two
Americas
" -
but that
every
person
in this
country
can be
whomever
and what
ever
they
want to
be if
they'll
just
work to
get
there -
and
nowhere
else on
earth
can they
find
such
opportunities.
I
believe
our
government
should
help
those
who are
legitimately
downtrodden,
and
should
always
put the
interests
of
America
first.
The
purpose
of this
message
is that
I'm
concerned
about
the
future
of this
great
nation.
I'm
worried
that the
silent
majority
of
honest,
hard-working,
tax-paying
people
in this
country
have
been
passive
for too
long.
Most
folks I
know
choose
not to
involve
themselves
in
politics.
They go
about
their
daily
lives,
paying
their
bills,
raising
their
kids,
and
doing
what
they can
to
maintain
the good
life.
They
vote and
consider
doing so
to be a
sacred
trust.
They
shake
their
heads at
the
political
pundits
and
so-called
"news",
thinking
that
what
they
hear is
always
spun by
whomever
is
reporting
it. They
can't
understand
how
elected
officials
can
regularly
violate
the
public
trust
with
pork
barrel
spending.
They
don't
want
government
handouts.
They
want the
government
to
protect
them,
not
raise
their
taxes
for more
government
programs.
We are
in the
unique
position
in this
country
of
electing
our
leaders.
It's a
privilege
to do
so. I've
never
found a
candidate
in any
election
with
whom I
agreed
on
everything.
I'll
wager
that
most of
us don't
even
agree
with our
families
or
spouses
100% of
the
time. So
when I
step
into
that
voting
booth, I
always
try to
look at
the big
picture
and cast
my vote
for the
man or
woman
who is
best
qualified
for the
job.
I've
hired a
lot of
people
in my
lifetime,
and
essentially
that's
what an
election
is - a
hiring
process.
Who has
the
credentials?
Whom do
I want
working
for me?
Whom can
I trust
to do
the job
right?
I'm
concerned
that a
growing
number
of
voters
in this
country
simply
don't
get it.
They are
caught
up in a
fervor
they
can't
explain,
and
calling
it
"change".
Change
what?, I
ask.
Well,
we're
going to
change
America
, they
say.
In what
way?, I
query.
We want
someone
new and
fresh in
the
White
House,
they
exclaim.
So,
someone
who's
not a
politician?,
I press.
Uh,
well,
no, we
just
want a
lot of
stuff
changed,
so we're
voting
for
Obama,
they
state.
So the
current
system,
the
system
of
freedom
and
democracy
that has
enabled
a man to
grow up
in this
great
country,
get a
fine
education,
raise
incredible
amounts
of money
and
dominate
the news
and win
his
party's
nomination
for the
White
House -
that
system's
all
wrong?
No, no,
that
part of
the
system's
okay -
we just
need a
lot of
change.
And so
it goes.
"Change
we can
believe
in."
Quite
frankly,
I don't
believe
that
vague
proclamations
of
change
hold any
promise
for me.
In
recent
months,
I've
been
asking
virtually
everyone
I
encounter
how
they're
voting.
I live
in
Illinois
, so
most
folks
tell me
they're
voting
for
Barack
Obama.
But no
one can
really
tell me
why -
only
that
he's
going to
change a
lot of
stuff.
Change,
change,
change.
I
have yet
to find
one
single
person
who can
tell me
distinctly
and
convincingly
why this
man is
qualified
to be
President
and
Commander-in-Chief
of the
most
powerful
nation
on earth
- other
than the
fact
that he
claims
he's
going to
implement
a lot of
change.
We've
all seen
the
emails
about
Obama's
genealogy,
his
upbringing,
his
Muslim
background,
and his
church
affiliations.
Let's
ignore
this for
a
moment.
Put it
all
aside.
Then ask
yourself,
what
qualifies
this man
to be my
president?
That
he's a
brilliant
orator
and
talks
about
change?
CHANGE
WHAT?
Friends,
I'll be
forthright
with you
- I
believe
the
American
voters
who are
supporting
Barack
Obama
don't
have a
clue
what
they're
doing,
as
evidenced
by the
fact
that not
one of
them -
NOT ONE
of them
I've
spoken
to can
spell
out his
qualifications.
Not even
the most
liberal
media
can
explain
why he
should
be
elected.
Political
experience?
Negligible.
Foreign
relations?
Non-existent.
Achievements?
Name
one.
Someone
who
wants to
unite
the
country?
If you
haven't
read his
wife's
thesis
from
Princeton
, look
it up on
the web.
This is
who's
lining
up to be
our next
First
Lady?
The only
thing I
can
glean
from
Obama's
constant
harping
about
change
is that
we're in
for a
lot of
new
taxes.
For me,
the
choice
is
clear.
I've
looked
carefully
at the
two
leading
applicants
for the
job, and
I've
made my
choice.
Here's a
question
- where
were you
five and
a half
years
ago?
Around
Christmas,
2002.
You've
had five
or six
birthdays
in that
time. My
son has
grown
from a
sixth
grade
child to
a high
school
graduate.
Five and
a half
years is
a good
chunk of
time.
About
2,000
days.
2,000
nights
of
sleep.
6,
000
meals,
give or
take.
John
McCain
spent
that
amount
of time,
from
1967 to
1973, in
a North
Vietnamese
prisoner-of-war
camp.
When
offered
early
release,
he
refused
it.
He
considered
this
offer to
be a
public
relations
stunt by
his
captors,
and
insisted
that
those
held
longer
than he
should
be
released
first.
Did you
get that
part?
He
was
offered
his
freedom,
and he
turned
it down.
A
regimen
of
beatings
and
torture
began.
Do you
possess
such
strength
of
character?
Locked
in a
filthy
cell in
a
foreign
country,
would
you turn
down
your own
freedom
in favor
of your
fellow
man?
I submit
that's a
quality
of
character
that is
rarely
found,
and for
me, this
singular
act
defines
John
McCain.
Unlike
several
presidential
candidates
in
recent
years
whose
military
service
is
questionable
or
non-existent,
you will
not find
anyone
to
denigrate
the
integrity
and
moral
courage
of this
man.
A
graduate
of
Annapolis
, during
his
Naval
service
he
received
the
Silver
Star,
Bronze
Star,
Purple
Heart
and
Distinguished
Flying
Cross.
His own
son is
now
serving
in the
Marine
Corps in
Iraq
.
Barack
Obama is
fond of
saying
"We
honor
John
McCain's
service...BUT...",
which to
me is
condescending
and
offensive
-
because
what I
hear is,
"Let's
forget
this
man's
sacrifice
for his
country
and his
proven
leadership
abilities,
and talk
some
more
about
change."
I don't
agree
with
John
McCain
on
everything
- but I
am
utterly
convinced
that he
is
qualified
to be
our next
President,
and I
trust
him to
do
what's
right.
I know
in my
heart
that he
has the
best
interests
of our
country
in mind.
He
doesn't
simply
want to
be
President
- he
wants to
lead
America
, and
there's
a huge
difference.
Factually,
there is
simply
no
comparison
between
the two
candidates.
A
man of
questionable
background
and
motives
who
prattles
on about
change
can't
hold a
candle
to a man
who has
devoted
his life
in
public
service
to this
nation,
retiring
from the
Navy in
1981 and
elected
to the
Senate
in 1982.
Perhaps
Obama's
supporters
are
taking a
stance
between
old and
new.
Maybe
they
don't
care
about
McCain's
service
or his
strength
of
character,
or his
unblemished
qualifications
to be
President.
Maybe
"likeability"
is a
higher
priority
for them
than
"trust".
Being a
prisoner
of war
is not
what
qualifies
John
McCain
to be
President
of the
United
States
of
America
- but
his
demonstrated
leadership
certainly
DOES.
Dear
friends,
it is
time for
us to
stand.
It is
time for
thinking
Americans
to say,
"Enough."
It is
time for
people
of all
parties
to stop
following
the
party
line.
It is
time for
anyone
who
wants to
keep
America
first,
who
wants
the
right
man
leading
their
nation,
to start
a
dialogue
with all
their
friends
and
neighbors
and ask
who
they're
voting
for, and
why.
There's
a lot of
evil in
this
world.
That
should
be
readily
apparent
to all
of us by
now.
And when
faced
with
that
evil as
we are
now, I
want a
man who
knows
the cost
of war
on his
troops
and on
his
citizens.
I want a
man who
puts my
family's
interests
before
any
foreign
country.
I want a
President
who's
qualified
to lead.
I want
my
country
back,
and I'm
voting
for John
McCain.
"Obama's
Legacy Forecast, Cloudy with Occasional Racism"
It's obvious that anti-patriotic Barack Obama and his, "for the
first time in my adult life I am proud of my country"
Wife, both seem to be influenced by their racist anti-American
"God damn
America" Pastor.
Like
the old saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock
together"...
The
APFTE suspects that the Obamas have a streak of racism and
anti-patriotism ingrained in them as well, or they wouldn't have
continued to follow the "Racist Anti-American Pastor" the
way they have for the last 20 years or so.
Think about this...
How long would it take yourself to find another Pastor to follow
if vile racist hatred and anti-American sentiment spewed from his big anti-patriotic mouth?
How long would you put up with it?
Twenty years? One hour? Ten Minutes? Most loyal Americans
wouldn't listen to his garbage for more than a single minute before
avoiding the moron like the plague.
However,
I'm not writing about normal
Americans. I writing about anti-American scumbags that would
like to control our government and with that, control our lives as
well...
Obama
claims he will change America, well he was a politician in Illinois
and didn't change a thing in all the years he was there, why would
anyone expect a change for good to occur if he managed to con his way
into the Presidency?
Illinois has one of the most corrupt State Governments in the USA. And
he was part of it. Tony Rezko, a Friend, Next-Door-Neighbor and
Contributor of Obamas went on trial recently and was convicted for
corruption.
Obama
has not once crossed the aisle in the U.S. Congress to help with a
Republican bill and has the most liberal voting record in Washington
DC. Where was his bi-partisanship before he was running for
President? Nowhere to be found, and a leopard doesn't change
it's spots people.
Is
he saying he's going to change himself first before becoming
President? Or is the change he's going to strive for is a change to
total liberal rule in the White House? What exactly is he going
to change?
The
APFTE recalls learning of a lawsuit a few years ago... It was filed
against an Illinois State College by a White Student that was told she
wasn't allowed to partake in a certain college architectural course because it was
reserved for Black Students Only and being White she was barred from
taking the course.
Can you even begin to visualize the uproar
and protests that would occur if any State College barred a Black
Student from taking a course for the same reason?
Surely all the
"show-boater/media-whore" regulars like Jessie, Sharpie and
the other parasites would be clamoring for a spot in front of the news cameras
right next to the most popular Liberal Democratic Politicians!
Except
that this case was only about a White Student being racially
discriminated against... no big deal right? She deserved
it, because she was born White, and we all know that according to the Affirmative
Action Laws she has to pay for what some White people did 100, 150,
200 or more years ago right? You know that's a wrong idea and bad law.
When
Barack Obama was asked about the lawsuit by a major Chicago newspaper,
he stated as eloquently and as statesman like as he could in his bold
convincing rhetorical voice, that he supported the colleges Blacks
only classes and didn't see any problem with them.
What's
next Mr. Obama? "Blacks Only Drinking Fountains" in
Illinois Colleges? The hypocrisy and double standards are
blatant.
If
Obama is going to continue to point out potential racism and
discrimination against Blacks, while the law of the land actually
condones discrimination and racism against White Citizens, he should
also champion the eventual "Equal Rights For Whites" as well.
He
probably won't though, because then he might lose the support from
many of the 96%
or so of all Black Voters that are voting for him just because he's
Black...
That
voting by the way, is also racial discrimination on a
massive scale. Whoever said Blacks can't be racist better have their
head examined.
Can
Barack
Obama be a racist hypocrite, in the same way as his Pastor that he
claimed earlier that he admired so much is? Perhaps he is, but finding out for sure
after he's the President is a truly bad idea.
After
all... how many Presidents in American history hung around with an America Hating
Racist Pastor for over 20 years that they adored and believed in up
until just before attaining the Office? The only reason Obama seems to
be mad at his Pastor now is because he couldn't control him and get him to
shut his racist anti-American mouth while Obama was trying to con the
American People into getting elected President. Obama
does not deserve to be the President, and never has.
Now
if we could only get patriots like Condi Rice or Colin Powell to
run... that's the real dream ticket!
It
sure looks like Barack Obama failed to say the pledge of allegiance respectfully or even symbolically
place his hand over his heart... Staunch Obama cult members will
say otherwise... don't you believe it though. Is this the kind of
"American" you want as President of the United States?
The Members
of the APFTE expect no one except the most patriotic type of Citizen
as U.S. President. After all, if we're going to scrape the
bottom of the "anti-patriot" barrel with Obama... why not
just have Anti-American Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or maybe
Syrian President Bashar al-Asad or even Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez living in the White House instead?
At least
they're honest enough to admit openly that they dislike the USA, and
want to adjust it more to their taste, unlike
Presidential hopeful Barak Hussein Obama.
Even
Obama's wife claimed that “People in this country are ready for
change and hungry for a different kind of politics and… for the
first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels
like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Just maybe
because her "Hubby" is wishing and hoping his way into gullible
peoples minds and into the Presidency?
Obama's
wife was born in 1964, meaning her adult life began in 1982.
After
going to two top notch Colleges, after living a Millionaires lifestyle
much of her adult life, after witnessing the end of the cold war, witnessing
Republicans offering other people of her race positions on the highest
court, Office of Secretary Of State and other previously unobtainable
positions of prestige, Obama's wife, our next potential First Lady is
now finally feeling proud to be an American? What a fool.
Don't
settle for an "Anti-Patriot" in the Oval Office. Save
your support for a Patriotic American.
Besides,
the only "Change" that's going to occur when Obama gets
elected will be the "change" that's left in your wallets
after he raises our taxes!
The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States
Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending.
When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country.
When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.
To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders" download the
file for 2005.)
In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.)
In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black.
In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.
The table does not give statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:
"In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black
man."
The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course,
to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article
on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally
are determined by police and prosecutors to be
false:
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.... It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing."
No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America.
A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her.
There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the
agnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.
Meanwhile, in the real America, week
after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by
black men—though, of course, without ever once using the
words, "a white woman was raped by black man."
Just last week in
the New York Post there was a story about a serial black
rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper
West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing
accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most
likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks
occurred. But even when news media's reports of black on white
rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media
only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference
is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of
black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as
part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention
of the fact that white women in this country are being
targeted by black rapists.
In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.
By Lawrence Auster
May 3, 2007
Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers a traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right.
Article Link
We Live In The
Land Of The Free, Because of The Patriotic Brave... Please
Support Our Troops In Their Effort To Keep Terrorism And
Those That Would Promote It Busy Somewhere Else... Instead
Of Having More Acts Of Terrorism In Our Own Cities, Murdering
Thousands Of Our Citizens In The Name Of The Terrorists Fanatically
Warped Religious Beliefs.
