O'Bama's Hidden Agenda "SOCIALISM"

I came across a vary curious website when I saw a picture in the September issue of "Townhall Magazine". The picture was of pro-illegal groups in front of San Francisco City Hall protesting against the "Minutemen". One such group was holding up a huge banner stating "No Human Being is Illegal", and the organization was the ISO "the International Socialist Organization". I went to their website and the following is copied right from their site without editing.

THE CASE FOR SOCIALISM

by ALAN MAASS, editor, Socialist Worker

Human need, not corporate greed
"Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs.
It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity. (Sound familiar?)
There’s no blueprint for what a socialist society will look like. That will be determined by the generations to come who are living in one. But it seems obvious that such a society would guarantee every person enough to eat and a sturdy roof over their heads. The education system would be made free--and reorganized so that every child’s ability is encouraged. Health care would be made free and accessible to all, as would all utilities like gas and electricity. Public transportation would also be made free--and more practical and efficient. All of these basic needs would become top priorities.
A socialist society would not only take away the existing wealth of the ruling class, but also its economic control over the world. Under the current system, important economic decisions are left to the chaos of the free market and to the blind competition of capitalists scrambling for profits. Under socialism, the majority of people would plan democratically what to do and how do it."

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs..Wikipedia

I can't believe that I am the only person out there
who sees the distinct comparison between the campaign speak of Obama,
and the tenets of socialism!! Joe Biden the other day said that richer
people needed to pay more, that it was PATRIOTIC to do so??? Ok does it
sound like this: "From each according to their ability, to each
according to their need." That is a direct quote from Karl Marx!!



What appalls me is that NO MSM dare to touch this with a 10 foot pole!! All the scrutiny they have put on Sarah Palin, who has no where near the checkered past of Barack Obama, just shows the bias they have exhibited throughout this entire campaign. Even when Obama puts it right our there to be seen, they turn the other way. In his book, "Dreams From My Father" he spoke of "Frank" who was his mentor in his early teenage years. It has become common knowledge that he is referring to "Frank Marshall Davis". Gerald Horne, a Communist Party historian and contributing editor of Political Affairs, claims that "Frank" was Davis, and further claimed he was a "decisive influence" on Obama, stating "Look, there's one of US influencing the possible next president of the United States", 'US' meaning a Communist. Obama also remembered Frank later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer working for a Saul Alinsky based organization when he took some time one day and visited the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig."

I have just given you 2 names; Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky. Do the research for yourself, don't take my word for it. Both of these men had strong ties to the Communist Party of the United States of America-CPUSA, and espoused their beliefs. Both of these men had a profound influence over Barack Obama. Here was a young man caught between 2 worlds. His white grandparents were giving him the best private education they could afford. But he was a black man, and was having an identity crisis. He turned to a radical black man who told him "Don't ever trust the white establishment", who told him "You may be a white, well paid nigger, but you're still a nigger just the same"!! Now I don't know about you, but my world view has been strongly influenced by the associations and beliefs I formed in my young adult years. I can't believe that Obama is any different.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why Are There So Many MSM Outlets Attacking Sarah Palin??

Well, I have spent the better part of the past 2 days perusing the various media outlets. I have watched the video of the Gibson interview with Sarah Palin several times. I also found the actual transcripts of the interview and saw how it was edited to make Sarah look like she was: "At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' " -- New York Times, Sept. 12

"The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today". Charles Krauthammer Saturday, September 13, 2008 and he should know according to Wikipedia

I thought that the only truly biased networks were MSNBC & its parent company NBC, but now I know that ALL MAIN STREAM MEDIA is in the tank for Obama!! I have NEVER seen Obama hammered like Gibson did Sarah Palin. Granted, she doesn't have the hardened cynicism of the likes of Joe Biden with 28 years in the senate where he voted 96.6% the same way as his party. And she isn't like the forked tongued, right in your face deceptive B. Hussein Obama. She is a new face on the national scene, but her approval rating in Alaska is over 80%, compared to the 9% approval rating of Congress I'd say she is doing her job a lot better than they are!! It strikes me as unnerving that there has become such scrutiny of Gov. Palin, her family, and her background. Yet no one has ever questioned Obama about his associations, and I don't mean Ayers, and Wright. What about Frank Marshall Davis? The mysterious "Frank" from his book "Dreams from my Father", was his childhood mentor and father figure. Frank was a member of the Communist Party USA, and a subversive wanted by the FBI. BO sat at his feet and listened to his stories. And who in the media has asked the Obama's about "Public Allies"? It's just a little organization that Michelle was executive director of in 1993. Oh yeah, it sounds like a great "Service Organization" on its website, and BO even alludes to it on his website as the model for his "National Service Corps". Problem is folks, and I know some of you BO groupies are too young to even know what I'm about to say, this is all radical, socialist, Marxist rhetoric learned at the feet of Frank Marshall Davis. And one more player is "Saul Alinsky". Good 'ole Saul wrote "Rules for Radicals" in 1971, it is out of print, but you can find chapters of it reprinted on various web sites. B. Hussein Obama is following his plan to gain wide eyed, bushy tailed followers to a T. Our Public Universities have been preaching radical socialism for years. Look at University of Colorado's Ward Churchill, Churchill, in an essay after the Sept. 11 attacks, compared the victims who died at New York City's World Trade Center to the Nazi regime's functionaries. The MSM has become the outlet for the Liberal Elite and now their mission is to take down any opposition to their "Chosen One".

"Many Democrats are clearly itching for the Illinois senator to go at Palin in a meaningful way. The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not," " Chris Cillizza, author of washingtonpost.com's political blog, The Fix. Even newspapers across the pond have to get their two cents worth in. "John McCain is a boring, warmongering has-been, but Sarah Palin has been the real outrage. How could the greatest power on earth allow this untravelled, snow-flecked, ex-beauty queen, stained with the blood of moose, born again in the Lord, with her teeming family of children with names that sound like dogs, near the nuclear button? According to The TELEGRAPH.co.uk

There are so many websites that have popped up overnight because everyone wants to get in on the act. Ask yourself WHY? Why does the Obama camp need people attacking Sarah Palin, and making up lies, and distorting the truth about her? When you see someone taking down Sarah Palin, ask yourself why? Why hasn't Obama, with everything going for him, been able to seal the deal? It's because most Americans have a feeling in their gut that something just isn't right about this guy, and it has nothing to do with race.

The Entire ABC Liberal Biased Interview with Sarah Palin

Obama Has 10 Point Lead

NO, don't get worried. Obama's lead isn't in the polls of the USA. In a poll of Germany, France, Britain and Russia, Obama is the candidate most of these countries citizens think THEY would be better off if Obama was elected. Here is the article from the Wall Street Journal:

10-Foot Poll
Yesterday we noted that a new poll gives Barack Obama a massive lead. But this was not good news for Obama, for the survey was not of likely voters or even registered voters, but of people who cannot vote in American elections--namely, foreigners.

Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with London's Guardian, has appointed himself spokesman for "the world," and he gives voice to this preference:

Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . .

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start--a fresh start the world is yearning for.

Freedland goes on to assert that if Obama loses the election, "the world" will conclude that America is racist. He approvingly cites Jacob Weisberg's article to that effect, which we refuted last month. But there is something particularly rich about the notion of "the world" sitting in judgment of America on this score. Has a nonwhite politician ever even seriously contested an election to lead the German, French, British or Russian government?

What really encapsulates the absurdity of Freedland's position, though, is his statement that "if the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama." In fact, these polls show only that if the free world could chose the leader of America, it would be Obama.

This is a crucial distinction, because the American president is the leader of the free world only informally, and only by default. America has outsized power because it has taken on outsized responsibility, in significant part because other would-be world powers have shirked their responsibilities.

Freedland acknowledges that he isn't doing Obama any political favors by making this argument:

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted?

What it says about America is true of every other country in the world. Do citizens of Germany, France, Britain or Russia cast their ballots on the basis of which candidate will maximize the "esteem" of other countries? Of course not. People everywhere vote on the basis of what they think is best for their own countries.

Americans may decide that a McCain presidency would better serve American interests than would an Obama presidency. Lots of people in other countries seem to believe that an Obama presidency would be better for them. There is no contradiction in these views. It may well be that when American interests and those of other countries diverge, McCain is more inclined than Obama to put his own country first. If "the world" prefers Obama to McCain, that may be a perfectly rational reason for Americans to prefer McCain.

Now THAT'S what I call Lipstick on a pig!!

clipped from townhall.com

The Mom and the One

We know now that the Palin phenomenon is for real. We can tell because our lefty friends have come up with a new pejorative: "Caribou Barbie." It joins "neoconservative," invented in the 1960s to describe New York Jewish intellectuals who had been mugged by reality, and "neo-con," invented in the 2000s to account for the sons of the neoconservatives of the 1960s, men who believed in reality even before they were mugged. And who can forget Dorothy Parker on Calvin Coolidge: "weaned on a pickle," or Clark Clifford's "amiable dunce" who won the Cold War.

There is no escaping the truth. No real conservative can hope to succeed in national politics without first earning a sneering pejorative from the Progressive Order of Angry Lefties. Gov. Palin must be the real thing.

Many conservatives were angry, in the last week, as our liberal friends descended upon Gov. Sarah Palin with a ferocity that was startling even to William Kristol. But this was not bad. This was good.

Rush Limbaugh is always saying that liberals cannot admit to the American people who they really are. They have to dissemble in order to get elected. That's why Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going around talking about his "faith," trying to talk evangelical lingo to the God and guns set.

But last week, after the Palin breakout and the ensuing disorder in the front lines of the culture war, many liberal formations were running around leaderless, and they didn't have their talking points from brigade HQ at The New York Times and National Public Radio yet.

Without the proper talking points they told us rather more about themselves than they should have. They let us see who they really are.

And they showed Americans how liberals really are different from conservative and heartland Americans.

The difference has nothing to do with bad-tempered pejoratives. Oh no. We conservatives understand that. We understand that the difference is deeply philosophical.

Here's what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor says in The Sources of the Self. The "me" of the authentic modern self, he writes, is not a feeling or an instinct, it is:

what reason produces, and what reason demands is that one live by principles.

Reason and rational principles must be the guiding lights of life. But ever since this notion was advanced by chaps like Kant at the end of the eighteenth century, conservatives have said: Whoa, dobbin.

Conservative have insisted on aspiring to a balance of principle, of conscious rational principles balanced by the unconscious wisdom of tradition.

But in the progressive understanding, developed by Hegel and Marx, the "aspiration is ultimately to a total liberation." Here there is no balance but a drive for complete liberation from the superstitions and the obligations of the past.

In politics and economics total liberation gets you from capitalism to the liberation in socialism. In personal liberation it gets you to French existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre and his partner Simone de Beauvoir. For them the liberation of the individual creative self in creative expression is everything From them comes the idea of women's liberation in The Second Sex, where woman is the "victim of the species" unless she is liberated from unending drudgery by a career of creative expression.

You can see why abortion slithers into place as the central sacrament in this faith. You cannot attempt a life of creative expression if you cannot experiment with all aspects of human experience, including sex. But then you cannot live out your life of individual creative exploration if you have also to live out the sexual consequences of your expressive life. Nobody would want a young person to be "punished with a baby," or disqualified from creative self-expression by a minor youthful indiscretion. You soon get, in fact, to the modern extended adolescence where nobody expects a teenaged liberal, or college liberal, or twenty-something liberal to suffer the consequences of their expressive behavior.

The life of Gov. Palin and her family are an intolerable witness against this liberation world-view, inconvenient facts that cannot be allowed to falsify its liberating truth, and that is why our liberal friends are beside themselves.

And so the culture wars are rejoined, and the American people are called to make their choice: The Mom or The One.

"Bloom where you are planted." That's what Rebecca Hagelin's mother told her. And that is what Gov. Sarah Palin did.

What makes her absolutely appealing to ordinary citizens across the country - both young and old - is that she didn't go looking for greatness somewhere "out there"

She found it right where she was planted.

Want to influence your child's education? Get involved at the local school. Fed up with the "good old boys" at city hall? Run for election. Get pregnant when you are 17? Well, I guess you are growing up faster than you thought.

Does that make sense to you? Then you must be a conservative. You must believe in responsible liberty rather than self-expressive liberation.

Still, a conservative can chuckle at the thought of "Caribou Barbie." Do you think that Mattel could get a limited edition with rifle, specs, and chignon out by November 4?
(This was taken from an article I found on the net, forgive me for not remembering who wrote it, but I give them credit for it's worth,)

Facebook | Christopher McLean's Notes

Facebook | Christopher McLean's Notes:

Sarah has awoke the Sleeping Giant...

Need I say more... Read on

clipped from www.gallup.com The gap between registered voters and likely voters has once again enlarged in the McCain-Palin ticket's favor in this poll. While the Republican ticket leads by 50% to 46% among registered voters, that lead stretches to a 54% to 44% lead among those Gallup sees as most likely to actually turn out and vote. This difference between likely voters and registered voters indicates that if the election were held today, McCain would benefit from a differential advantage over the Democrats in terms of those voters actually likely to turn out and vote -- as has often been typical of recent presidential elections

She's The Real Deal!!!

Here is Sarah Palin's GOP Vice Presidential Acceptance Speech. I don't think I've ever seen a more inspiring speech in my life. Sure as hell beat the Messiah's speech in the Denver Greek Temple.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

We have definitely hit a new LOW in American politics. The attacks that have been playing out in the mainstream media on Sarah Palin are absolutely a new all time LOW! There is an orchestrated attack on this woman's credibility by the Democratic Party and their left wing cronies to get McCain to drop her from the ticket. And why praytel would they be so AFRAID of her ?? Because she has given momentum to the Republicans, and the base is totally energized by her.
I don't remember the MSM digging into Obama's associations with Ayers, Jeremiah Wright or Tony Rezko. In fact they swept all that under the rug by saying it was nothing more than a RIGHT WING attack on their MESSIAH!!! Talk about a DOUBLE STANDARD!! "Yeah we're all for a woman in the White House, as long as she's not a strong Republican woman". The stories that are making the airwaves make me angry. Even "Hollywood Tonight" had to get it's two cents in, by comparing Sarah Palin to Lynn Spears, give me a break. I don't remember seeing such a feeding frenzy in the MSM in my lifetime, and it's going to backfire on them. Not just Republicans, but fair-minded men and women from all political beliefs are outraged!! More on this later, I have to go to work, but this issue is far from over....