OBAMA CAMPAIGN HAS NO SHAME IN QUEST FOR VICTORY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The Obama campaign has spent more millions of dollars on advertisements and propaganda to get their "messia" elected than any other candidate or President in our history.
Many adds were negative attacks on Senator McCain and especially on Vice-President candidate Gov. Sara Palin.But they have not stopped with attacks on the opposition candidates. They also have advocacy adds targeting special interest groups. Once such add was designed to target American Jewish voters. A group that Obama has prior to his nomination, often maligned in favor of Obama's pro-Palestinian position.

The following article appeared in today's edition of Asharq Alawsat a leading English version of Arab International News. It details how three high ranking Israeli persons were duped into making an add to be used to entice Jewish voters.

"Three Israeli security figures said Monday they were duped into taking part in an ad supporting Barack Obama made by the same group that was behind comedian Sarah Silverman's "Great Schlep."

Uzi Dayan, a retired army general, and Efraim Halevy, a former Mossad chief, were among eight high-ranking retired members of Israel's security establishment in a pro-Obama film. Former Mossad agent Yossi Alpher also said he was misled.

The three said they were unaware they were being interviewed for a political campaign and thought they were commenting on the regional strategic affairs that will face the next U.S. president. All insisted they have not endorsed either Obama nor his Republican rival, John McCain.

"This is pure and simple deceit," said Dayan. "I never expressed support for Obama, his approach or his opinions. I've also never expressed support for McCain."

The eight-minute video, aimed at American Jews, was produced by the Jewish Council for Education and Research. The nonprofit group supports the Democratic presidential candidate, but says it is not connected to Obama's presidential campaign.

The group is also behind "The Great Schlep" — a Web site featuring Silverman encouraging young Jews to go to Florida to persuade their grandparents to vote for Obama.

Mik Moore, a co-founder of the political action committee, said the video quoting the Israelis was aimed at "setting the record straight" about Obama's approach to Israel.

Moore said participants were informed the film makers supported Obama, and the video didn't claim everyone in it endorsed him. He promised, however, to "address their concerns."

The video, which includes clips from Obama's visit to Israel, concludes with a black screen reading: "The people who have kept Israel alive offer you their choice."
This is just another example of the lies and deceptions that are part and parcel of the whole Obama campaign.


And then there is this news about the American Communist party, and it's glee that Obama apparently is going to capture the Presidency.
The Agency France_Prasse one of the oracles of the Communist party, and it's recent editorial contained these comments about the pending Presidential election.
"An Obama election will boost The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path" and "shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.""None of the people's struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if (John) McCain wins in November," says the editorial, listing issues that sound a lot like the concerns of the Democratic Party's platform.
The Communist Party's dedication to Obama is not new. During the primary season in March, the party noted in a news release that the Obama "campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."

And although the AFP reports that they don't endorse Obama( they never have endorsed a Presidential candidate),they acknowledge that many of the "workers" at Party headquarters wear Obama buttons on their lapels.

Americans wake up and smell the stink of corruption and see the darkness of the Lies!

THE ACORN/OBAMA CONNECTION

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

In order to understand how Barack Obama and ACORN are among those who are responsible for the mortgage meltdown. You first have to understand what ACORN is and how Barack Obama was affiliated with them...and make no mistake; Barack Obama was most definitely affiliated with ACORN.

The Roots of ACORN
From a comprehensive and thoroughly researched piece by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review titled, Inside Obama’s ACORN, we come to understand that ACORN has its roots in the anti-capitalist tenets of the 1960s radical left group the National Welfare Rights Organization. This groups’ goal was to force a radical reconstruction of what they described as “America’s unjust capitalist economy” by forcing the elimination of eligibility restrictions for those trying to attain inclusion on the welfare roles, thus creating an overloaded system, a crisis, so as to affect that reconstruction.source:wikapedia

Over the years, ACORN "morphed" its mission into one that champions a diverse set of objectives, all with an overriding goal based on the tenets of anti-capitalism and the destruction of the US Capitalist system. The group targets privately owned companies in their pursuit of cleverly public mandated "living wage" laws that have literally driven companies from some areas where jobs are badly needed.

They continue their campaign to eliminate welfare role eligibility restrictions(ie. illegal aliens) as they push to roll back welfare reform. And, in an area directly related to our subject, they actively employ coercive tactics to manipulate financial institutions into abandoning best business practice by affording low-interest loans to unqualified/minority borrowers.

In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. This law requires financial institutions to offer credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations. Simply put, the Community Reinvestment Act forced financial institutions to offer credit – mortgages – to unqualified borrowers. To add teeth to this law, provisions were included to punish financial institutions that did not embrace the horrific business practice of lending money to those unable to pay it back. source:Congressional record

Because of the Community Reinvestment Act, any financial institution that wants to expand or merge,and any financial institution that has earned the right to grow because of its utilization of good business practices,has to prove it has complied with the Community Reinvestment Act. Otherwise the growth move can be blocked through regulation set-up to enforce the law.

ACORN, under the guise of affecting “affordable housing for the poor” routinely employs intimidation tactics (both physical and verbal), public charges of racism and threatens to use the Community Reinvestment Act to block business expansion. These actions have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and “organizational contributions” (read: extortion) from America’s financial institutions.

The actions of ACORN by their intimidation of financial institutions that make up the mortgage banking industry, serve as the chief catalyst for the mortgage crisis and the financial meltdown we are experiencing today. By coercing the mortgage banking industry into lending to those who were unqualified to borrow.

ACORN instigated the collapse of the housing market and, as a result, is directly responsible for qualified borrowers(you and I) being nearly unable to secure legitimate lines of credit today.

But how does this relate to Barack Obama?

Barack Obama’s Connection to ACORNWhen a young Barack Obama was first starting in his career as a “community organizer,” he caught the eye of Madeleine Talbot, the Chicago chapter head of ACORN. Talbot was so impressed with Obama’s organizational skills in his effort to attain asbestos abatement at a low-income housing project that she invited Obama to help train her own staff in the art of community organizing.

In an article by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN’s National Association Board, published in Social Policy titled, Case Study: Chicago. The Barack Obama Campaign shows that Barack Obama is a key figure in ACORN’s yearly leadership-training seminars. Foulkes also exposes the fact that the much-touted Project Vote campaign which Obama takes credit for organizing was, in fact, in direct partnership with ACORN!

Barack Obama was retained to represent ACORN in a legal action regarding an Illinois law addressing what has come to be known as “motor-voter” voter registration. He was intentionally and specifically sought because of his days working with Madeleine Talbot.

After Obama officially left ACORN and began to craft his political career he tapped into his time at ACORN to field his volunteer staff. Having trained many of the ACORN leaders in Chicago there was a cadre of enthusiasm for his candidacies throughout the organization. This includes his 1996 congressional campaign, his 2000 State Senate campaign, his 2004 US Senate campaign and today’s 2008 presidential campaign. It should be noted here that Obama sought and received endorsements from ACORN’s political arm for his political contests.

A minimal effort into researching then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama’s pet projects reveals that on several occasions he introduced legislation complimentary to ACORN’s goals including legislation addressing the municipal living wage and the financial sector. And when Obama sat on the boards of the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation he was afforded the wherewithal to direct grants to ACORN, which he did.Source: Chicago Tribune

HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey, points out that, “It’s important not to get too carried away with the ACORN connection in the collapse. The real trigger came when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up all of these loans and converting them into securities.”

"But a gun doesn’t shoot without bullets and ACORN’s manipulation of the mortgage banking community in securing low-interest loans for unqualified borrowers manufactured the “bullets” that were shot by the gun owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." With the assistance of Congressman Bernie Franks and Senator Dodd, the two responsible for oversight of the "Freddies"!

The mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial meltdown that has caused hundred-point slides in the stock market in recent days, was started with training people. Community activists and their coordinators were taught how to coerce financial organizations into employing bad business practices by providing loans to people who could never, ever pay them back.

Barack Obama trained Madeleine Talbot’s budding ACORN staff how to organize people to action. He returned yearly to provide leadership-training seminars. And after ACORN employed the practice of coercing financial institution into providing low-interest loans to unqualified recipients Obama served as their legal counsel.

Of course, like every other legitimate charge brought against the Democrat "messia", this will be denied, but the Internet has all the facts for those who are willing to research it as I did.

Despite these facts I must say I believe we have a majority of voters who have welcomed the government "cradle to grave" concept, and this smooth talking con-man will occupy the Oval Office!

FACTS NOT REPORTED ABOUT THE "Bailout"

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

In the US, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are, contrary to free-market capitalistic logic, making all the major strategic decisions in the financial sector. Fear and panic have taken over as the beacon of world capitalism resorts to socialism and socialist measures of dealing with disaster. State intervention reigns supreme with the rescue of the American International Group (AIG) by the Bush administration. In other words, the US government has effectively nationalised banks, mortgage and lending institution and insurance companies.

By taking over AIG, and engineering the Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch, Washington acknowledged that socialism is the solution in times of crisis. "We have to pay for the sins of the past," conceded Klaus Schwab, the organiser of the World Economic Forum.

Neo-liberal and laissez-faire measures have proved to be inadequate and incapable of securing effective regulatory mechanisms. The golden age of capitalism appears to be coming to an ignominious close.

Socialists and the champions of state intervention in the economy have been vindicated. This is the principal lesson for developing countries. Contrary to the supposed logic of capitalism, stagflation -- the coexistence of low growth with high inflation -- has taken hold of the economies of the North.

The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 and the dubious role played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Treasury Department comes to mind, with the deluge of foreign funds designed to garner the quickest and highest returns, i.e., the real estate and stock markets. Needless to say, stock and real estate prices are now plummeting, prompting the panicked withdrawal of funds, which of course merely makes things worse, wiping out billions of paper values. By 1997, the emerging markets of East Asia lost $100 billion in a couple of months. Capital flight not surprisingly induced an IMF bailout of foreign speculators. East Asia plunged into a deep recession in 1998. Only Malaysia, sensibly fixing its currency and taking firm government action, survived more or less unscathed.

This Wall Street bailout -- yes, bailout, not "rescue" -- is yet another boondoggle by the Congress, pulled out of bankers' back pockets, and being enacted in an atmosphere of panic orchestrated and spread around the world to make sure it got passed ASAP. A bankers' 9/11: implode a few bank towers to make sure the system as a whole survives.

As the dust settles, it is clear that nothing much about our casino capitalism is about to change at all. But what is to be expected from the likes of United States President George W Bush?
Joseph Stiglitz comments, "This 'cure' is another one of these rearrangements: by stripping out the bad assets from the banks and paying fair market value for them, the value of the banks will soar." It is a ruse based on the "trickle-down economics" made famous by president Ronald Reagan. Throw enough money at Wall Street and a few drops are sure to hit Joe Public.

Legislation that shows a corner is being turned, a new leaf turned over, would require addressing issues such as the trade deficit, the very debt-based system of money creation -- none of which got the time of day as legislators prepare to end their final working session this year.

Even Barack Obama would not be able to extricate himself from the spider's web that is the US political system today, as his hearty support for the bill and support of President George W Bush show. Funny how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, accompanied by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, seemed to pull the $700 billion 450-page Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act out of his hat like a magician.

Was this plan in the wings, just waiting for its chance in the spotlight? And does it make sense to let the fox work out a plan to save the chickens as they come home to roost? Isn't it more likely that he will ensure the long life of his progeny first, always keeping in mind that enough chickens must be kept alive to reproduce and feed the foxes? To use another metaphor, does it make sense to put the pilot who hit the iceberg in charge of the lifeboats?

Adam Smith writes in The Wealth of Nations : "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profit takers], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Instead, it was railroaded through Congress and the Senate in a mood of hysteria, irresponsibly orchestrated by the very foxes who created the problem. The plan is intended to infuse the financial system with cash to "thaw" frozen credit markets (as if it is a natural process) and prevent a deep recession. Isn't printing more dollars like pouring water through a sieve?

The program will send the federal deficit through the roof, even as it approaches record levels. The Treasury will have to borrow the money, requiring a bill increasing the government's legal debt limit by -- surprise -- $700 billion, to $11.3trillion.

Then there is also "the Buffett model": Warren Buffet put money into Goldman Sachs, getting preferred shares and warrants, i.e., both protection when prices slide and participation when they stabilise. This would have worked better as a way to save the banks and protect taxpayers, even if it didn't address the underlying problems.

Two bright spots: insurance for deposit accounts was increased from $100,000 to $250,000 and pay for senior executives at firms participating in the programme was capped. CEO salaries have skyrocketed in the past two decades; for instance, Lehman Brothers' Richard Fuld received $466 million from 1993-2008 and a whopping $62 million "golden parachute" exit pay on resigning last month, as his firm chalked up a $6 billion loss and declared bankruptcy. Executive "pay" does not include the de rigueur hefty stock options and perks.

The Treasury may now ban excessive salaries and bonuses, as well as these golden parachutes for executives at firms that receive direct infusions of federal cash. Companies that sell assets in government auctions will lose tax deductions if salaries for their top executives exceed $500,000 a year, and outgoing managers who take severance packages triple their annual salaries will be required to pay a 20 per cent excise tax. But over all it was still a bad deal, and the Congress is to blame,on both sides of the isle!
source:Investors Business Daily

TIME TO EXPLORE THE JESSIE JACKSON/OBAMA CONNECTION

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan


Jessie Jackson gave a speech recently to the first World Policy Forum in Europe,
during the speech, Rev..Jackson said he thinks he knows what Obama has in mind, . Amir Taheri of the New York Post has the story, cleverly titled "The O Jesse knows" source: Thomas Lifson

Reverend Jacksonm warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.
"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

A book every voter should read is "SHAKEDOWN", the story exposing the Real Jesse Jackson, by Kenneth R. Timmerman. It is shocking because the truths exposed in the book were never deep, dark secrets to anyone except to the American public. The information presented, meticulously backed up by documents and interviews, was always available to journalists and columnists who made the effort to find it and had the integrity to write about it. But the few who dared were viciously attacked by the liberal media, and at times by Jesse's close friends, the Black P Stone Rangers, a violent Chicago street gang.

Even as the national media was increasingly drawn to Jesse's theatricality and bombastic racist statements serving to promote his non-profit organizations, Jesse used the muscle of the street gang to shake-down Chicago businesses for 'contributions'. His non-profits, Operation Breadbasket and PUSH,were merely vehicles for providing Jesse with a power base and were the illegal source of his personal income.

After tapping out Chicago businesses, Jesse moved on, during the Carter administration, to bilking the American taxpayers out of billions of dollars in federal minority set-aside contracts (those awarded to Jesse's family and friends were usually subcontracted to white businesses) and federal grants to non-profits. This was money never adequately accounted for, money that Jesse considered his own (illegal) private purse for his fabulously luxurious lifestyle. Several of those in the Carter administration who worked at the Commerce Department and the Labor Department, shoveling those grants and contracts to Jesse, went to work for him after Carter left office.

To the dismay of many black leaders, the mainstream media crowned Jesse Jackson as the primary civil rights leader and spokesman for America's black community. His non-profits were supposed to provide services to America's black poor and inner-city children. No one in the media seemed to notice or care that few benefits ever accrued to those for whom the set-asides and grants were legally intended, though Jesse got richer and more famous, and his relatives and a few well-to-do black business friends made out like bandits. (Until President Reagan cut off funds to questionable organizations like Jesse's.) But Jesse just moved on, to mau-mauing (Timmerman's term) big American corporations.

The mainstream media was Jesse's leverage when he put the arm on the corporations. No longer did he need to call on his half-brother Noah Robinson (whom Jesse had introduced into the Black P Stone Rangers and who is now serving a life sentence for murder) to provide gang members to intimidate Chicago businessmen or to bulk up demonstrations and boycotts. Jesse now had available much more powerful 'muscle' to enforce his demands.

Big business caved when Jesse threatened to shame them....in the press....as racists. One corporate executive told Timmerman that businessmen would rather be called child molesters than to be charged with racism because the media outrage was greater! Corporate bosses knew the media was uncritical of Jesse's statements and would not investigate the charges.

Jesse blackmailed the companies into 'covenants' promising to hire, on Jesse's recommendations, black executives, to give business to specified black companies, and to make contributions to Jesse's non-profit organizations. The few blacks who profited from Jesse's brokering also made contributions to his non-profits and to his personal finances. He was making money from both sides and in the process extending his power and patronage.

The "mau-mauing" of corporate America was easy and lucrative, and became more so when Jesse took it to the heart of Wall Street in the nineties. Corporations, banks, even Alan Greenspan were soft touches for Jesse's increasingly sophisticated blackmailing. Why not? The media was far more effective and powerful as enforcers than his Chicago gang friends had been. Jesse's statements about 'diversity' and 'access' (buzz words replacing the old 'minority set-asides') were trumpeted as God's own truth by solemn talking heads on the TV nightly news.

The New York Times and the L.A. Times, which are the source of news for many newspaper conglomerates around the nation and for the world, praised Jesse as the leading civil rights leader even though nothing Jesse was doing benefitted the black poor. Precious little of the millions he collected trickled down to provide services to or to educate and train blacks. Jesse and a very few black businessmen profited. That was the goal and that was the accomplishment of his raid on Wall Street.

A devastating section of Timmerman's book is that devoted to Jesse's activities in Africa. Jesse never met a dictator anywhere in the world that he didn't like, if the dictator wisely cut Jesse and his friends in on the exploitation of the dictator's country -- in return for Jesse's support of him in the United States. By the mid-nineties, Jesse and President Clinton had settled their differences and Clinton named Jesse as the Special Envoy to Africa.

OBAMA has disavowed his association with Reverend Wright, Weathermen Ayers and Dorn,
and he and his campaign have repeatedly denied he was ever a Muslim. But we must question this despite Obama's claims that he is a Christian and adamantly denies that he was ever a Muslim.
Yet his sister, with whom he lived as a child has disclosed "my whole family was Muslim." His 1968 registration at a Catholic school lists him as "Barry Soetoro," a citizen of Indonesia, and his religion is Islam. He himself admits that later he studied the Koran at a public school in Jakarta. Only Muslim children studied the Koran there, and his former principal recalls that Barry studied mengaji - recitation of the Koran in Arabic, an advanced form of study.

Now the alleged greatest extortionist in modern times, Jesse Jackson, claims: " We helped him start his career, and then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."
Just how much has "JJ" helped Obama "move forward", to what extent and when?

OBAMA AND SOCIALISM GO HAND IN HAND

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

October 13, 2008 Why Obama's socialism matters By Bookworm
For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not. It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism. The terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo. Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

The original Utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individuals moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis.

Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.

Herewith some examples:
First, consider Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.
Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state.

Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

Then there's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin.

Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

Another example is the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment.

Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism is so scary!

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. Americans who live in our free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will not willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology.

They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism is not just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America! source: The American Thinker

CONCEALING FACTS IS THE SAME AS LYING

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

It is difficult keeping up with Obama's promises to the voters. There have been so many changes and the package he promises voters is reported in the pliant Media in such a positive way, that the sum total is bewildering.
One thing I can say with certainty, is that he promises a shift toward the welfare state like nothing our Republic has experienced since the Constitution was ratified.

Obama adds continually hype the fact that anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year will not have their taxes raised. What he doesn't tell the voters is that those millions who do not pay taxes, will get a REBATE check! Where the money will come from is of course out of the pockets of the hard working middle class.

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the US Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes. "It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group...The freshman senator's campaign Web site defines the Democrat's tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers "middle class tax cuts" and "for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes."

But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, "There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals. "source:Investors Business Daily

His "tax cuts" are base lined against the Clinton era brackets and ignore the President Bush tax cuts. The result will a huge tax increase for millions of middle class taxpayers. The one hundred million taxpayers that he claims are being ignored pay no income taxes now, only the payroll (Social Security) tax. He intends to give them a break even on this tax through a massive income redistribution scheme which is nothing more than welfare! These are facts not my opinions!


Then there is the fact that we may be electing an Apostate to the Presidency, despite all the claims by Obama and his campaign handlers that he is not or was not a Muslim.The following is an excerpt from an article written by Lt.Col.Michael Burket(Retired)

"The point here is that the religion of the foreign mother is on no consequence in the Muslim world. The status of my wife’s religion was never asked. It was assumed I’m sure, her religion was the same as mine. That’s the way it is in the Muslim world. Women are not afforded much in the way of status in the Muslim world, and Obama’s mother was no exception.

Islamic law is consistent throughout the Muslim world. Children of a Muslim father, even secular Muslims, those who rarely attend Mosque services, rarely keep the Ramadan fast, the Eid holidays etc. are automatically Muslims. The child of a Muslim father, is a Muslim. There is no wiggle room here. Koranic law is the law!


Barack Hussein Obama lived in Indonesia as a child. His mother, no doubt was a convert to Islam, as a Muslim will not marry a non-Muslim, at least not publicly or officially. Obama’s mother was married twice—to Muslim men! Young Barack Hussein would not have lasted long in a Madrasa, if he weren’t a Muslim. Peer pressure alone would have been intolerable, yet young Obama attended the Madrasa for several years. Make no mistake about it; he attended AS A MUSLIM. There would have simply been no other way.

During Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, he attended an Islamic school, we know as a Madrasa. Young Barack Hussein would have studied the Koran, the Haddith and the Sunna. He would have received indoctrination in the Muslim faith, just like the other boys his age and at his level of schooling. Young Barack Hussein would have participated in the five daily prayers, either in a prayer room at his Madrasa, or at a local Mosque.

Obama has attempted to mask his early religious training and affiliation but anyone who knows anything about the Muslim religion easily sees through the charade. So what you say. Why should we care about all of this? The reason is simple. In the Muslim world, Barack Hussein Obama is an APOSTATE. An apostate is a person who has turned his back on Islam. In short, you can’t quit the Islamic faith. It is simply not allowed in Islam!

Of course there are many men and women who do just that. They convert to other faiths for a variety of reasons and for the most part, do so with impunity. However, each and every man or woman who quits Islam and professes belief in another faith, such as Christianity, Judaism or whatever is subject to being killed, in the name of Allah! The Koran demands that an apostate be killed.

Is it of any consequence you continue to ask that Obama was once a Muslim, but is now a Christian? Obama is an apostate and it’s a very serious issue with 1.4 Billion Muslims around the world. Experts on Islam generally agree that someone who is born a Muslim (in effect, someone who had a Muslim father), who later renounces Islam, is considered an apostate, and vile enemy of Islam. Again, it’s Islamic law almost universally.

Should Obama become U.S. commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al-Qaida’s media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit Obama’s background to argue that an “apostate” is leading the Global War on Islam and is attacking and killing fellow Muslims!" source: The New Media Journal

Although I realize that my message is received by too few people, and am literally "preaching to the choir". Wake up Americans and spread the message to your friends and neighbors before we awaken in the new Marxist state!