Messiah Obama

The media coronation of Obama has provided the political pundits with an excellent source of satirical fodder. None has been nearly as entertaining as this one which appeared on Hannity and Colmes earlier this week.

The Left views Obama as the Savior of America. The One who will be a beacon of light to the world. Armed with the way of Marx he will teach us a new way and purge the conservatism from America. With a wave of his sacred pen, he will bring healing to those who are sick and do not have health insurance. He will offer hope to the downtrodden. He will drive the whore mongers and money grubbers from our midst and bestow holy 'fairness' to all.

However, the Right understands who and what Obama really is. They have seen his like before. Those who have embraced the Dark side. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao. All these offered hope through the way of Marx, and unleashed only want, misery, and death on the planet during the last age. Barack Obama is no Savior. And this is his true appearance.

He is Darth Liberty!

Bradley-Obama 2008

In 1982 Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley seemed certain to become the first black governor of California. Pre-election polling gave Bradley a double digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian. Bradley lost.

Several high profile races since 1982 in which a black candidate has run against a white opponent have followed the same pattern. This phenomenon has been dubbed the Bradley Effect, and the possibility of it being a factor in the polling of likely voters in the current presidential race has pollsters frantically trying to come up with a way to negate it.

It has already reared its ugly head in the primary race between Obama and Clinton. Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary despite exit polls indicating a sizable lead for Barrack Obama. Currently, the polls show Obama leading McCain by 5.2. If there is a possibility that the Bradley Effect is a factor in the polls, a 5.2 lead is no lead at all.

Liberal Tyranny

The original intent of the liberal ideology of 'political correctness' was to curtail speech and actions which might offend someone. Through it, the left has been able to declare that particular ideas, expressions of speech, and behavior, which are legal, should be forbidden. While most, so called, 'politically incorrect' speech and behavior are unwritten prohibitions, some have been written into law in many jurisdictions; i.e., hate speech statutes. Today, 'political correctness' has grown far beyond its original design.

PC is the rule of law on the vast majority of university and college campuses in the U.S. where it is being used to marginalize conservative ideology and activities. In a free society the people have a right to speak and to write freely. They also have the right to support the advocates of ideas and policies which best represent their interests with their time and their money. Tyranny begins with the suspension of these basic human rights.

In 1949, the FCC adopted a general policy to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues was fair and balanced. This policy was interpreted by many to require station owners and operators give persons with opposing viewpoints equal time to air those viewpoints, usually free of charge. Because broadcast stations were not disposed to giving away air time and were also not to fond of having the FCC breathing down their necks, the 'fairness doctrine', as it came to be known, had the effect of limiting free speech.

Since the FCC was an agency of a Democratic party controlled government, broadcasters soon learned that avoiding government scrutiny was simply a matter of avoiding the airing of conservative Republican opinions. Conservatives found themselves in a crippling situation. Broadcasters were unwilling to give them a forum and the vast majority of publishers were liberal. Free speech effectively suspended! That is, until the 'fairness doctrine' was abandoned during the deregulation of the Reagan administration.

When Rush Limbaugh exploded onto the airwaves in the late eighties, broadcasters all over the country realized that there was a huge market for conservative talkers. Today, there are enough conservative talkers in so many markets, that one can literally listen to conservative talk all day long, even while traveling. Additionally, the popularity of conservative talk has opened up many other opportunities for conservatives to get their message out.

Liberals are in a panic. They desperately need to stop all this unwanted free exchange of ideas. 'Political correctness' works well to suppress free speech in the microcosm of a university campus, but it can hardly be applied to the same extent to the whole of a free society. Liberal Democrats in Congress are currently trying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine', as well as using 'campaign finance' law to again suppress free speech.

Fortunately, I believe that that horse has been too long out of the barn. Conservative authors are turning out a great number of best selling books each year. Conservative bloggers are confounding the efforts of the left wing media to misrepresent the facts. Newspapers lose subscribers when they publish blatant left wing opinions. Fox News Channel is now the #1 cable news network, and it already has an arguably fair and balanced format. And, worst of all, at least as far as the left is concerned, conservative students have begun to organize to fight the PC system on our nations campuses.

The monopoly that the left has held over public discourse is diminishing, and they are understandably frustrated. They know, or ought to know from their experience trying to compete with conservatives on talk radio, that in a 'real' fair and balanced atmosphere, their ideas will not prevail. They have no choice but to return to their radical revolutionary roots. In fact, they have already begun. Conservative speakers have been attacked during their lectures by left wing radicals at universities across the U.S. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Pat Buchanan are a few of those who have been attacked with a pie in the face or doused with salad dressing.

It is the beginning of what will eventually become a campaign of domestic terror, the purpose of which is to intimidate Americans into allowing a return to the tyranny of the past. However, the movement at present is to small. The radicals need an issue, a catalyst which they can use to recruit thousands of young idealist across America. They may have just what they are looking for very soon. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President of the United States, the radicals will have the catalyst they are looking for. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they are counting on it.

Obama: The Socialist Connections

I have been thinking about old 1960s songs lately. Today's political climate seems to have a similar revolutionary feel to it. One song in particular seems to be playing over and over in my head, "For what it's worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

"There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."

There is most definitely something happening, and under the threat of being accused of 'McCarthyism', the mainstream media will not be spending much, if any, time clarifying exactly what it is. Under the cover afforded by the 'threat', Democrats are beginning to 'come out of the closet' and be more open about their true ideological connections. One of the most straightforward of these is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly admits to being a socialist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA is the largest socialist organization in America.

In the early 1990s House Democrats established the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). ‘Progressive’, as any student of political history should know, is a form of socialism, and the CPC certainly has socialist ties. Up until 1999, the DSA hosted a website for the CPC. Of the 72 members of the CPC, 58 are also members of the DSA.

Howard Dean, the Democrat National Committee chairman, was honored at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA in 2000. In 2006, Dean spoke on the Global Challenges for Progressive Politics before the Party of European Socialists (PES). Additionally, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported in 2007 that European Socialist had met with Democrat members of Congress in Washington. Some of these Democrats were Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Cardin. According to Rasmussen’s report, an agreement was made at this meeting that Democrats and PES activist groups in various US cities would begin to work together.

The man who would be President of these United States and the current standard bearer of the Democratic Party, Barack Hussein Obama has verifiable ties to socialists as well. Obama was influenced by socialist ideology from his childhood. Obama’s father, a Harvard-educated economics professor, wrote an academic paper in 1965 for the East Africa Journal entitled, Problems Facing Our Socialism. In it he expressed Marxist and anti-western ideals. In Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of my Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama wrote of the admiration he feels for the ideals of his father. He also mentions his boyhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a poet-activist who was also a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Obama admits to having attended the annual Socialist Scholars Conferences at The Cooper Union in Manhattan while he was a student at Columbia University in the 1980s.

Beginning in 1995, (at least that is the earliest confirmable connection between Obama and the DSA), the Chicago chapter of the DSA began grooming, sponsoring, and in 1996, endorsed Obama for the 13th Illinois Senate district. In addition to the DSA endorsement, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party (NP). The New Party is a Marxist ‘fusion’ group. The NP’s Chicago chapter includes a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of Maoist, Trotskyist, and the Communist Party USA members. Also, in 1996, Obama was a panelist at New Ground 45: A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity at the University of Chicago. These meetings were sponsored by the U of C DSA Youth Section and the Chicago DSA.

If Barack Obama’s connection to socialist organizations is insufficient to convince one that Obama is a socialist, there is the fact that he has socialists working for him inside his campaign. At his Houston HQ, a campaign worker displayed a Cuban flag with the image of radical icon and mass murderer Che Guevara printed on it. There are two socialists working on Obama’s staff. One is Cornel West, an african-american studies professor at Princeton University, who serves on the Obama presidential campaign’s black advisory council. West denounces America as racist and patriarchal and describes himself as a “progressive socialist”. The other is Cass Sunstein, a professor at University of Chicago’s Law School. In his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever, Sunstein argues that the government should grant rights to citizens on a discretionary basis.

And then there is William Ayers. In the early 1970s Ayers was a leader in the Marxist terror group ‘The Weather Underground’. Ayers, along with his current wife Bernadine Dohrn bombed the Pentagon, the Capital Building, and the NYPD HQ. In a New York Times interview which was published on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs,….I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked if he would do it again, Ayers said, “I don’t discount the possibility.”

In 1995 Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraising event in their home for Obama’s Illinois Senate run. Obama and Ayers have also worked together on various community organizing projects in Chicago. They have an ongoing relationship which David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, describes as “certainly friendly.”

While Barack Obama does not claim to be a socialist and his supporters are laboring diligently to deny that he is a socialist, it is difficult to believe that he has been ideologically unaffected by the groups and individuals that he has associated himself with. A man is known by the company he keeps.

The Myth of Bipartisanship

I recently saw a poll online which showed that nearly ninety percent of Americans want the two major parties to work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems in America. I was really surprised by that number. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how widely divided the two major parties are ideologically. Probably the only issue in the past year that Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that Michael Vick is a really bad person for running a dog fighting ring and being party to the death of a few dogs.

Americans need to come to an understanding of the fact that for the last fifty years there has been an ideological civil war going on in this country. The battle ground of this war has been the hearts and minds of the American people. There is a 'right' and a 'left', a 'conservative' and a 'liberal', a 'capitalist' and a 'socialist' viewpoint for every single issue, and, they are as far apart as they can be. Bipartisanship can only maintain the status quo. It isn't as if the two parties are trying to get to the same place and are just in a disagreement on how to get there. They are trying to go in opposite directions.

Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. Republicans believe in an uninhibited free market economy and Democrats want more government control bordering on socialism. Republicans believe that Americans know better how to spend their own money and Democrats think that the government would do a better job. Republicans believe in supporting America's interests abroad and Democrats seem to be more interested in supporting the interests of our enemies.

Where is the common ground?In this election season there has been a lot of clamor about change. Americans want change and are sick and tired of the status quo. If Americans want change they need to join the fray. They must stop sitting on the fence. They are going to have to examine the ideologies of both parties and pick a side. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

It is time to choose!

Obama's Patriotism

On Monday, June 30th, Barrack Obama gave a speech in Independence, Missouri. In this speech Obama said, "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign, and I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." This line has gotten a lot of media coverage. However there are other statments by Obama in this speech which should have gotten more.

There is this,

"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What Obama had quoted is actually the first few lines of paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence. The first few lines of the Declaration begins, "When in the course of human events it become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,..."

Again, from Obama's speech,

"As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted."

Excuse me! Our forth century as a nation? The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, which means that we have barely begun our third century, not our forth. Add this to the fact that Mr. Obama believes that we have 57 states in our union by virtue of the fact that he has visited them all, and one wonders how well he might do on the popular game show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader".

These gaffs do not add up to a question of his patriotism as much as his ignorance. Patriotism is a difficult concept to define comprehensively. Many people define it very differently. The best definition which I have heard comes from Samuel Clemens, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." I believe this definition is one to which our nations founders whould have subscribed.

Mr. Obama's political history as a socialist leads me to believe that his administration would be one which I could not support. It is on this basis that I question Mr. Obama's patriotism.