Liberals hate to be accurately identified. Call them socialists for proposing wealth-redistribution schemes (tax the rich), call them unpatriotic for acting against American interests (not renewing FISA), call them pawns of big corporations (global warming), and you’ll get an indignant response that is about as genuine as a crocodile who just polished off a family of four protesting being called a maneater. UPDATE 10-24-08: Obama has denied it, but a 1996 newsletter proves it — the Democrats’ candidate was a member of a socialist political party dedicated to changing American society.
Click here.
UPDATE 09-03-08: They threatened TV station owners, they tried to have the Justice Department arrest the sponsors, but Obama’s goons haven’t stopped this blog from posting the Ayers video the Dems don’t want you to see. Click here.
They don’t even like to be called liberal — the PC term is “progressive,” as if any part of their agenda would mark progress by any sane measure. Now comes Barack Obama, liberal chameleon par excellence. The man presents himself as a blank slate and through vacuous platitudes like “change” and “hope” invites his followers to write their own version of what he stands for. But throughout the campaign, clues have come out about the real Obama, and the picture they start to form is not a pretty one, and it may even portend dire consequences should he ascend to the Oval Office. There were the little things, like not wearing a flag pin like other candidates, or not putting hand over heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, or the way his wife said last week that she had never been proud of her country before. There was the confusion about his religion, how he was born Barack Hussein Obama, attended a Muslim school according to his own book, was raised by a Muslim stepfather, but now claims to be a Christian, though his is a decidedly radical church. Then there are the people he claims as role models: the anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who admires Louis Farrakhan; his self-described mentor “Frank,” who turns out to be the communist poet Frank Marshall Davis. Also consider some of the people he has been associated with: communist college professor William Ayers, with his wife Bernadine Dorhn, was a founder of the Weather Underground, a group that planted bombs at the Capitol and Pentagon and committed robberies in the seventies. In 1995, Obama attended a function at their house. According to the New York Sun, Ayers and Obama served together on the board of the nonprofit Woods Fund for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, in 1997 and in 2001. In 2001, Obama accepted a $200 contribution from Ayers, according to officials with his campaign. On the day the Twin Towers were destroyed, 9/11/2001, Ayers was quoted by the New York Times: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers, who was never convicted of the Weather Underground bombings, is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Obama’s inclinations also appear in his choice of staff. According to columnist Debbie Schlussel, despite Obama’s campaign denouncement of Louis Farrakhan, Obama continues to employ a number of Nation of Islam members in high positions. When a former associate of Obama’s raised objections to Nation of Islam acolytes being put in positions of power, “Mr. Obama’s position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn’t think it was a problem.” If true, then Obama’s denouncement of Farrakhan is a transparent lie. According to Schlussel, the same informant says that Obama is strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. The Web site of Palestinian activist and Obama acquaintance Ali Abunimah features photos of Obama and his wife attending a fundraiser for the late Edward Said, an adviser of Yasser Arafat’s. The accompanying article documents Abunimah’s dismay that Obama publicly changed his stance on Israel to win Jewish votes and contributions. And there is his opposition to fighting against terrorism, with his express plan to plunder the U.S. military budget to pay for his $800 billion (and counting) of proposed new spending. Obama’s following is almost cultlike in its character and in its inability to tolerate discussion of what the man truly stands for. And Obama himself isn’t forthcoming. But there are plenty of signs that whatever is truly in Obama’s heart, the good of the country is not at the top of the list.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
Unbelievable how someone so unamerican can actually be a contender for the Presidency, regardless of political party.
Comment by infinitygoods — February 25, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
you are who you are by the friends you keep..
Comment by phredd — May 30, 2008 @ 9:00 am
I still dont understand how any American can stand by Obama. Would you believe he said the following?
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
If you don’t believe he would say that … maybe you should go read his book ‘Audacity of Hope’!
The full quote:
“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
And if the “ugly direction” is another 9/11-style attack from Muslim countries? What then, Mr. Obama?
Comment by StopObamanation — July 16, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
It is truly refreshing to know that I am not alone in my fear of Obama and his campaign of “change”. This man has duped the fools in this country into believing that he wants the best for the American people. Has this country become so pliable and easily led that we can allow this snake, this documented racist and theoretical supporter of terrorism, the ability of destroying the greatest country in the world?
What about change? Just watching those lemmings cheering “another mama for Obama” makes me ill. None of them have taken a moment to ask him, “WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO CHANGE?”
Perhaps, I’ll take a moment to educate these blind followers. He plans to steal from this country. He plans to steal from you, your family and your children. He will take your money, your dignity (unless you are of African descent) and eventually your freedoms.
God Bless this country and what it was built on. So help us God, may that NEVER change.
Comment by Proud to be an American Woman — July 16, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I disagree strongly with you.
“There were the little things, like not wearing a flag pin like other candidates, or not putting hand over heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, or the way his wife said last week that she had never been proud of her country before.”
I don’t even see how this is a problem. Just because he doesn’t froth at the mouth every time Stars and Stripes plays doesn’t make him unfit for presidency. One can speculate about the other candidates motivation for wearing flag pins and so on. Maybe it’s just for appearances to them. What his wife says has no bearing on his personal opinion.
“There was the confusion about his religion, how he was born Barack Hussein Obama, attended a Muslim school according to his own book, was raised by a Muslim stepfather, but now claims to be a Christian, though his is a decidedly radical church.”
I haven’t heard about any confusion over his religion. Yes, he is apparently of christian persuasion. Yes, he attended a muslim school. Yes, he has close relatives who are muslims. Yes, he was a member of a church which is radical. This is the only point in this section that would affect his adequacy. I believe he has disaffiliated himself with the particular church and its minister.
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he really disagrees with the rascist opinions put forth by the church so I’ll give you that this is a worrying fact.
“Then there are the people he claims as role models: the anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who admires Louis Farrakhan; his self-described mentor “Frank,” who turns out to be the communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.
Also consider some of the people he has been associated with: communist college professor William Ayers, with his wife Bernadine Dorhn, was a founder of the Weather Underground, a group that planted bombs at the Capitol and Pentagon and committed robberies in the seventies. In 1995, Obama attended a function at their house. According to the New York Sun, Ayers and Obama served together on the board of the nonprofit Woods Fund for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, in 1997 and in 2001.”
I can adress these two sections simply: Having them as sources of inspiration doesn’t necessarily mean that he agrees with their ideologies or anything. Who he has cooperated with in the past isn’t really relevant either.
“Obama’s inclinations also appear in his choice of staff. According to columnist Debbie Schlussel, despite Obama’s campaign denouncement of Louis Farrakhan, Obama continues to employ a number of Nation of Islam members in high positions. When a former associate of Obama’s raised objections to Nation of Islam acolytes being put in positions of power, “Mr. Obama’s position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn’t think it was a problem.” If true, then Obama’s denouncement of Farrakhan is a transparent lie.”
This bit of info is indeed worrying, if correct. Nation of Islam isn’t an organisation any serious politician should be affiliated with.
“According to Schlussel, the same informant says that Obama is strongly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. The Web site of Palestinian activist and Obama acquaintance Ali Abunimah features photos of Obama and his wife attending a fundraiser for the late Edward Said, an adviser of Yasser Arafat’s. The accompanying article documents Abunimah’s dismay that Obama publicly changed his stance on Israel to win Jewish votes and contributions.”
Being pro-palestinian in the Israel/Palestine conflict has no bearing on his expedience as president. Flip-flopping, if that is what happened, damages his credibility.
“And there is his opposition to fighting against terrorism, with his express plan to plunder the U.S. military budget to pay for his $800 billion (and counting) of proposed new spending.
Obama’s following is almost cultlike in its character and in its inability to tolerate discussion of what the man truly stands for. And Obama himself isn’t forthcoming.”
Cutting the military budget isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You have to realise, in comparison with other developed countries the US military budget looks gigantic. Would you like to expand on the alleged opposition to fighting terrorism?
Zealotry isn’t something that is exclusive to Obama’s followers. On the contrary, it’s a very common trait on all sides of political conflicts. Also, the fact that there are dogmatic followers of a political leader doesn’t discredit him in the slightest. Making a hyperbole generalisation like that is hardly fair play.
Have a nice day.
Comment by Fanboy — August 17, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Distribution of wealth is UNFAIR and goes against the AMERICAN DREAM! Since when is it ok to take hardworking business owners money and give it to people who do nothing but sit on their butts and bitch about the people who are rich. Our company is one of those considered in the top 2% of small businesses in American and I am outraged that OBAMA finds it ok to take my hard earned money and give it to people who don’t deserve it. We didn’t borrow money for anyone to get where we are today. It’s the 36 hour work days without sleep, it’s the driving 30,000 miles in 6 weeks from job site to job site that got us where we are today—-Now some lazy complaining “average American” is going to benefit from my money. More people would be anti-OBAMA if the cap was at $40,000 and if you made more than that you had to give 30% more in taxes back to the people making $39,999 and below. But OBAMA is capitalizing on the idea of sticking it to the rich. Mind you, my husband and I are not waving our money around and showing off. We are just two damn hard working Americans that help keep the economy moving by having employees and paying the fair taxes we already pay. And who in their right mind thinks that by raising our taxes and giving a tiny $600 tax refund to the “average Americans” is going to work? All of us small business owners are going to have to charge more for our services and lay off our employees. Then where are we at??? Screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope you are not expecting a raise—how about getting your car fixed at the shop, does your home need a repair??? You will pay more for these services because the small business owner will have to pay more! Oh, we are so so so so screwed if Obama gets in. Please Americans wake up! He has no experience and he hasn’t really said one true thing that he hasn’t flopped on! He tells you what you want to hear and says it with such power and vigor that all the little ducklings follow every word he said—- WAKE UP!!! McCain may not be the best choice, but anything is better than OBAMA! ANYTHING!!!
Comment by KEEPyourMoney — October 29, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
“distribution of wealth” has been around for years now in the United States… it is called a progressive tax system. Everyone understands that to fund huge programs like education and social security, the rich paying more is necessary. Even Adam Smith begins his section on taxation with the following maxim: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.” To ask otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.
The progressive principle was enshrined in American practice with the arrival of the federal income and inheritance taxes. The champion of these policies was none other than John McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt. We got progressive income taxes with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. The federal estate tax we have today came in 1916. John Mccain opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 saying it favored the rich to a ridiculous extent.
Our most explicit redistributive program today is probably the Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements the incomes of people who work but don’t earn enough to escape poverty on their own. Gerald Ford signed this bill into law, and Ronald Reagan greatly expanded it.
Obam’s most expensive new social program is an expansion of health care coverage that would not create a universal entitlement (as many Democrats want to do). It has been credibly priced at less, or only slightly more than McCain’s plan. There’s little reason to think that Obama would depart from the bipartisan consensus that has favored federal spending at approximately the same level for the past 40 years.
What has changed in that period is the way the market has distributed wealth. Since the 1970s, income inequality in the United States has increased dramatically. Obama, like a lot of his fellow liberals, wants to find ways to reverse that trend without diminishing overall economic growth.
And for the last point… there is a lot of irony in calling the rejection of FISA as “unpatriotic.” I thought a patriot was someone who defended the constitution?
Comment by Readmuch? — November 3, 2008 @ 11:38 pm