A LAME ATTEMPT AT A COMPARISON BY THE MEDIA

THE LAME STREAM MEDIA IS FILLED WITH COMPARISONS WITH THE PROBLEM BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS WITH HIS PASTOR OF 20 YEARS, REVEREND WRIGHT, AND JOHN McCAIN WITH TWO EVANGELICAL PASTORS WHO ARE NOT HIS PASTOR.

First of all, we must understand the difference between associating and contributing to the support of a Pastor, and the speech and philosophy of someone who publicly endorses a candidate, but has no personal connection to the candidate!Obama spent twenty years at the feet of his racist Black activist Pastor.

He was married, had his children baptised and contributed thousands of dollars to him.McCain had no connection with the two apparently twisted pastors who publicly announced their support for him. This is something he does not need to defend, but chose to do so. More power to him for clarifying his position on the issues these "pastors" were preaching. But you cannot tag him with the same "donkeytail" that Obama carries for his 20 year association with Wright.

For those who hope that the positions of these two Evangelical leaders will effect the voters, let me remind you of a statistic. The 2004 survey of Religion and politics in the United States[11] identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3%; while Catholics are 22% and Mainline Protestants make up 16%. In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6% (Evangelical), 24.5% (Catholics), and 13.9% (Mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York. [12]

The National Association of Evangelicals is a U.S. agency which coordinates cooperative ministry for its member denominations.the Christian Right is not made completely (or even a majority) of Evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians.

Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic." Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center as well.

In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals. Many evangelicals have little practical interest in politics.
In the end McCain, as recently as in a June of 2007 interview with McClatchy newspapers, has consistently described himself as an Episcopalian. He was raised in the denomination and attended the prestigious Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va.

Biographical sketches in several well-known congressional directories -- information that is usually provided by members of Congress or their staffers -- list McCain’s faith as the Episcopal Church.

Sorry, Leftist media and Obama sycophants, you can't paint him with the same brush as Obama was by his Pastor Wright!

ECOLOGY POLICE COMING TO THE USA?

Der Spiegel is reporting on conference of "scientists" who are planing to make their "cult" a profitable business.At a global conference in Bonn, Germany, representatives of 191 nations are discussing their revolution in conservation.

They believe that by making a highly profitable business out of saving forests, whales and coral reefs, environmentalists they can put a stop to an apparent, they say, dramatic wave of extinctions. The currency in their new environmental age is called a "forest certificate," and a potential market for the green money already existsthanks to Al Gore and his ilk.

In the EU emissions trading system, for example, industrial corporations and energy utilities are allocated carbon dioxide pollution rights known as CO2 certificates. They define how much carbon dioxide a given company's factories are permitted to emit into the atmosphere. If a company's CO2 emissions exceed its allocated limit, it must buy additional certificates to offset the difference. Unused pollution rights can be sold. In other words, the certificates have a real monetary value, which is currently at €25 ($39) per ton of CO2, but could increase to €60 ($93) in the future.Smells like a ponzi sheme to me! But this sounds to me like World dictatorship for the United States if their quest for environmental power succedes.

Apparently the tropical rainforest countries are keenly interested in entering this growing market.Note: most are countries considered third world countries. At the next UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen in 2009, the course could be set for the development of a market in forest certificates. Large electric utilities, like Germany's RWE, are already waiting in the wings. "Forests as a part of a global emissions trading system would be of interest to us," says Michael Fübi, the company's climate protection manager. The company would benefit by satisfying climate protection requirements more quickly and at a lower cost than through the installation of costly new technologies.

In the medium term, however, this could not serve as a replacement for modernizing power plants, says Fübi. How much money this forest certificate system would ultimately generate is still written in the stars. Experts estimate that it would cost $10 billion (€6.45 billion) a year to truly benefit the world's forests.Authors note: how do you give monies to trees?

Otherwise it would be far more profitable for tropical countries to cut down their forests for lumber, as they presently do.Seems to me as though they want successful economic countries to agree to a scheme that has a great possiblility of failure. Never the less,experts estimate that at least twice as much as is spent today on ecoological efforts, will be required to protect nature in the long term. Professional environment police officers must monitor the reserves.

Education is critical in helping local populations find new ways to live in harmony with nature. Microloans are needed to help people implement new business models compatible with the natural environment. Police Ecologists!!!! Can such global financial transfers truly bring about change? "Once CO2 trading translates into large amounts of money, the question that inevitably arises is who actually owns the forest," says Tom Griffiths, who is with the human rights organization Forest Peoples Programme. "Is it the investors or the people who live in the forest?" A typical socialist/communism question!

The underlying problem in these eco schemes is that those who seek to effectively protect nature, make ocean zones off-limits and allow forests to remain untouched must ensure that the people who have depended on these facets of nature for their livelihoods are given new opportunities, and thus far their is an eerie silence about this problem from those promoting the eco-economics.And they have another problem in Germany. While they are meeting in Bonn the head of the current German government, German Chancellor Merkel did little to ease tensions when she recently signed an energy treaty with Brazilian President Lula da Silva. The Brazilians see German concern for the Amazon rainforest as an attempt to corner the biofuels market. To produce bio-ethanol, they plan to have planted sugarcane in an area almost as large as Great Britain by 2025.

The World Bank allegedly plans to incorporate the entire Congo basin into its Forest Carbon Partnership program. The Washington-based organization wants to enter the emissions trading market with the CO2 stored by the Congo rainforest. Because deforestation in tropical regions is responsible for about 20 percent of "climate change, protecting the forest is synonymous with protecting the climate" -- and the world community(?) is increasingly willing to pay a lot of money to make that happen.

Blogger's comment:who do they include in the World Community? China and India are exempt from Kyoto, and the USA has rejected the proposal as being draconian!

While the politicians plot their Ecology "war"there are private wealthy people involved in their own personal ecology shemes topersonally control the fate of nature. Patagonia, for example, appears to be firmly in the hands of billionaires. For years, Douglas and Kris Tompkins, the co-founders of the apparel companies North Face and Patagonia, have owned several thousand square kilometers (more...) of untouched wilderness in the region. Some of their neighbors are speculator George Soros, fashion magnates Luciano and Carlo Benetton, actors Sharon Stone and Christopher Lambert, and CNN founder Ted Turner. Do you believe they are involved for soley altruistic reasons?

If natural landscapes are increasingly assigned a value, they could lose their role as "the world's free garbage dump," as Gordon Shepherd of the WWF puts it. But Shepherd also warns that adding value to nature is "no panacea." Indeed, it raises many questions. For instance, developing countries would have to prove that their goal is not simply to rake in additional cash, but that they are serious about protecting diversity. Sounds to me as though this is just another scheme to redistribute the world's wealth to undeveloped countries, where dictators will grab it ,and the poor people will continue to get "the short end of the stick"!

Omar al-Bashir, president of Sudan, retains his position as the worst dictator in the congo!And lest we forget the infamous dictator Mobutu; According to Transparency International, Mobutu embezzled over $5 billion USD from his country, ranking him as the third-most corrupt leader in world history and the most corrupt African leader ever. He is a constantly recurring theme in African dictators to whom these "pi-heads plan to give hundreds of millions to stop producing the wood we need to buil homes and the grains needed to make the new panacea, bio-fuel!!

THE UNITED NATIONS INVESTIGATING RACISM IN THE USA?

As Americans contemplate electing a mixed-race man for president, race is becoming an explosive issue. And taking this opportunity to stir the simmering pot of racial division is none other than The United Nations.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, said: “The visit of the special rapporteur is a critical opportunity to shed light on the pervasive and systemic problem of racism and discrimination in the United States.
In this election year, the eyes of the world will be turned toward America and its long-standing promise to end racial and ethnic inequalities.”
When both the Democratic candidate, and his wife, are graduates of Harvard law school. It would seem racial bias has been effectively neutralized by affirmative action in the USA!


A UN representative( Dr. Diene, a Muslim lawyer from Senegal) arrived Monday for a three-week visit to eight American cities—from New York to L.A., Chicago to New Orleans—at Washington’s unenthusiastic invitation. His mission “to gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Islamaphobia will be one of the main priorities of his investigation.
That’s right. As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the freest and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth.
Interesting timing. The racial climate in the U.S. at this moment can be described as charged, and presidential power is in play. Could it be that the UN is planning to intervene in United States politics? It is not the first time that the UN has investigated the USA while ignoring racial hot spots like Dafur!


As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the most free and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth!

discrimination in the United States.” Yes, that’s exactly what it will do, whether true or not—and whether it will help a problem or intensify it.

Though the unhrc report on U.S. racism won’t be released until spring of 2009, we can already predict its outcome. Just consider the source.
The unhrc is the United Nations at its hypocritical best. Similar to the Commission on Human Rights that it replaced in 2006, the unhrc is filled with human rights abusers in high-profile positions who use it as a cloak for their own abuses. Among its current 47 members are human-rights hypocrites like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, China and Russia; the ngo Freedom House rates nearly a third of them “not free.”


The UN investigator has been charged to to search out “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” specifically “any form of discrimination against blacks, Arabs and Muslims, xenophobia, negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance ….” Yes, supposedly he’s looking for anti-Semitism, but those searches invariably come up empty. Source: James Reine, UN correspondent.


Is it not strange that this investigation takes place in the middle of a Presidential campaign when the Democrat front runner has been accused of spending twenty years attending a church led by a pastor who is a racist Black activist?

THE REAL VILLANS IN TODAYS PRICE OF OIL

IN 1988 A $150 million lawsuit was brought to court against the Hunt brothers of Dallas in Manhattan, with a lawyer representing the leading Peruvian mineral company accusing the Hunts of engaging in an elaborate scheme in 1979 and 1980 to manipulate silver prices.

In addition to the Hunts, the suit named as co-conspirators two Saudi Arabian sheiks - Ali bin-Mussallam and Mohammad Aboud al-Amoudi -as well as Mahmoud Fustok, a Saudi businessman; Naji Nahas, a Lebanese citizen who lives in Brazil, and the International Metals Investment Company, a Bermuda partnership.

From 1973 to 1979 the Hunt brothers managed to capture enough silver futures( about half of the worlds silver) to drive the price from $1.95 per ounce to $54.00 an ounce!

After the Hunts crashed and burned and were sent to jail for conspiring to manipulate the silver market. Some ultra-wealthy investors such as Warren Buffett, George Soros (through Apex Silver) and Bill Gates (through Pan American Silver) took on significant silver positions. I hardly think that any of these well-known investors were like the Hunt brothers, but more likely these masters of wealth saw a profitable trade in having major positions in silver where others didn't.

That was a major scandal that the Federal government discovered involving manipulation of a commodity that was in a finite supply.

Now we have the potential for another commodities scandal. This time the culprits are Arbitragers and big commodity players, I believe.

We now have a similar situation, to 1988, that our government should look at, but probably will not. Prices for crude peaked above $135 a barrel Thursday in electronic trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Globex platform. See Futures Movers. Record prices over the past several months have raised questions over manipulation of the market.
A U.S. Senate panel listened to testimony on May 20 that said financial speculation by institutional investors and hedge funds in the commodity markets are contributing to energy and food inflation. See full story.
"The regulatory environment is becoming so undesirable to foreign and domestic funds that they have no choice but to go offshore," said Kevin Kerr, president of Kerr Trading International and editor of MarketWatch's Global Resources Trader.
Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. source: Market Watch

They pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion.
The growth offers "justifiable concerns that speculative demand, divorced from the market realities, is driving food and energy price inflation and causing human suffering," HSGAC said.

My belief is that the high price of oil is just what the Socialist Democrats want. They need an issue to hammer home in the months preceding the November Presidential election. What better than the high cost of food and fuel! They can blame the Republicans for their connection to "big-oil" even though many Senators and Congressional Democrats also have oil stocks and accept campaign funds from the oil companies and their producers. These people play both sides of the street! And are the same players, Soros and Buffett, that support the candidacy of Obama, back at their old game of manipulation?

Before we blame "Big Oil", I think we need to look at who is manipulating the crude oil futures! And we need to look at ourselves for letting a special interest group of Ecologist keep us from extracting crude oil from known sources here at home which could make us independent of OPEC!

With a controversial candidate like Obama, and all the Baggage he carries with him. The Democrats would like nothing better than for the voting public to ignore the fact that he may be a apostate Muslim, or a closet Muslim and a total Socialist and racist candidate.

IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

In the beginning, God created man and women. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This simple phrase is in the beginning of the Old Testament of the Bible used by all Christians the World over. Now the Left, or neo-pagans as I like to call them, are using as their center piece of the attack on the Family, the repeal of DOMA.

The way to destroy a basically religious Country is to destroy the family unit, as all religious believing countries are made up of a family unit. A unit made in the mold of the Trinity of the Catholic Church. My definition also includes single parent families, but not same sex couple "families". The family is the basic building block , the under pining, of societies acround the World. But what exactly is meant by the word "family"? One might think the answer was obvious – a husband and wife, and their kids – but these definitions would not cover all the different types of families that exist. There are "nuclear" families, extended families, one-parent families and families with adopted children in all civilized countries.

Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the "pride" section of his campaign Web site calls for repeal of DOMA.The legislation, passed in 1996, defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and it says states do not have to recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) SAID that she would support Obama in such a plan. "Yes, I would," she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is from one of the two states where the courts have upheld same-sex marriage, told Cybercast News Service that she was not aware of Obama's call to repeal DOMA. "I have not talked to Sen. Obama about that. I have not heard anything about that," she said. "I did not vote for DOMA in the first place. I voted against it, and I don't know anything about this."

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions," his Web site says.

For those of you who think I am making this all up, I submit the following: The following letter was released by Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama to GLBT Americans. This letter follows the announcement that the Obama campaign will be taking out full page ads in GLBT newspapers in Ohio and Texas beginning Friday. Read Obama's previous Bilerico guest post A Call for Full Equality.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary".

And you probably are thinking, this is just another blogger who is Homophobic! I now state that I am not afraid or prejudiced of Gays and Lesbians. I believe what they do is wrong, because of my religious beliefs, but I believe they are all children of God, and as such I honor them. I hate the sin, not the sinner! Never the less, a repeal of the DOMA law would be a direct attack on the basic principles that this country was founded. I ask all like minded people to write, call, email or fax you representatives in Congress to defeat this promise of Obama's. And for those who think they will vote for him. This is one more reason for Pause in your commitment to Senator Obama!

OBAMA YOU ARE NO KENNEDY OR REAGAN!

During a speech Obama gave today in Billings, Montana he took a swipe at John McCain, who had said yesterday that Obama showed recklessness and inexperience, because he said he would talk to Iran's president with no preconditions.

Obama said the threat from Iran had grown as a result of the US war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,"(I guess he forgot that the war got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein) he said. "And John McCain wants to double down that failed policy."
If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk." ( and they won't ignore a man born of a Muslim father?)

The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy."
"That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did," he said.

Obama either knows nothing about history, or he chooses like all other liberals, to write his own version. History shows that it was not talk, but the Naval blockade that stopped the Cuban missile crisis during the Kennedy administration. And during the Cold War the build up of the Strategic Air Command, and building a ring of missiles under the sea in submarines around Russia, that defeated the Russian Bear, not talk!

"President Ronald Reagan proposed a new missile defense system, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed "Star Wars". In an interview with the Soviet press, Reagan proposed eliminating nuclear weapons before deploying the missile shield; in other reports he suggested sharing the Star Wars technology with the Soviets. Although both of these suggestions were later repudiated, they demonstrate Reagan’s hope that a missile shield would render nuclear weapons obsolete".His talk was accompanied by "conditions". Only a political hack who is uninformed would propose a talk with no "Quid pro Quo"..

source: Wikapedia

OBAMA SPEAKS AS IF HE IS RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UN

Perhaps he was temporarily rendered senseless by the crowd, estimated at 65,000 people, that showed up for Obama's rally in Roseburg ,Oregon.

Whatever the reason, Obama once again showed his proclivity for international bias, that probably overshadows his concern for the "beer drinking, gun toting and church going" Americans.

This is not as bad a knock on us Americans as his wife Michelle's pejorative comment about never being proud of America until her husband decided to run for President. Never the less, the statement about other countries feelings about us, shows me he is more concerned about International opinion than he is about our maintaining our present life style!

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," He said this as part of an attack on the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

Since,as President, he would be riding in a taxpayer payed limousine ,and living in a White House with the best air conditioning system tax payers can buy. I guess he doesn't have to worry if we have to put up with discomforts and alterations in our life to satisfy his Ecological aspirations.

While President Bush is a "Johnny come lately"on a call for drilling for fossil fuels here at home, Obama is throwing in the towel for Americans, because he doesn't want to offend the rest of he world. Never mind the fact that China and India are marching toward financial greatness with little or no regard for the Kyoto agreement from which they are exempt!

OBAMA'S FIX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A HOAX!

ONCE AGAIN THE "EMPTY SUIT" FROM ILLINOIS HAS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE EITHER KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW AS A U.S.SENATOR, THAT HE CAN NOT DO!

In a speech given in Oregon, Obama promised that if elected he will protect The Social Security Trust Fund. A fund that does not exist, but rather is a "fund" filled with promissory notes from the government to the government. The "fund" is a misnomer for the deficit that the government has created by lumping all taxes including social security taxes into the general fund that is used to pay for the Socialist WELFARE society that our government has operated since the years of LBJ.

The Social Security system is primarily a "PAY AS YOU GO" system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, the financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits, thus the Congress raised the possibility of benefit cuts. Instaed they increased the taxes taken from your paycheck for social security.

The following is an excerpt from Wikapedia: "Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]

" The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.[1] The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund".
In 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people by simply telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It was empty!

Knowing that the Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no money, only IOUs there. It doesn’t exist, Obama has the gaul to say he will protect the "fund"!
Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government’s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable notes.

While speaking to a group of senior citizens in Gresham, Oregon,( a group he needs to win in November) the man who appears to be the Democratic presidential nominee raised the thorny Social Security issue. He criticized the George Bush/John McCain plan and offered one of his own.Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity." "A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class," he said -- "because Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American dream."

Invoking "the promise that FDR made," Obama said that when he's president, he will "fight every single day" to protect Social Security, which is coming under increasing strain as more Baby Boomers retire.First, Obama said he would "preserve the Social Security Trust Fund" -- by not spending money raised through payroll taxes on other things. Another example of a politicain who promises anything even if it is a lie, to get votes!

He said he would make sure that "money that's coming in for Social Security stays for Social Security." (Al Gore proposed a similar "lock-box" policy when he was running for president.)Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Some one should tell him the President doesn't control the budget, Congress does that. But since this is just another of his promises, we must assume that if (God forbid) he is elelected, will be just another campaign promise he fails to produce.

A Totally Lame Response

This past week President Bush apparently decided he was tired of Obama's Bashing of his Iraq policies, and went on the offensive. Although it is a little late, I would have preferred he had used the "bully pulpit" long ago and more frequently, but it was appropriate and on point.

Obama has gone on record, that if he is elected President, he would go to Iran to talk Amadinejad out of developing nuclear bombs. Immediately after he made this promise, many including this blogger compared him to Neville Chamberlain, and his "peace in our time" debacle with Hitler in 1939. We could also reference the failure of diplomacy in the explosive situation between Israel and Hezbolla since the "heady days" of the Camp David Accords in the Carter Days.

President Bush had this to say about trying to bargain with despots: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Ahmadinejad has demonstrated time and again that he will not listen to the UN, much less an "apostate" President!

Typical of the the double talk of the man in the "empty suit", he had this to say the following day.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel."
"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Obama keeps trying to compare himself to President Kennedy, and in this instance he even stoops to include Nixon and President Reagan, both of whom history proves were "Hawks" not "Doves" like Obama! Obama belongs to the Peace at any price ilk, as he showed when he came out against the Iraq war when the US Congress was approving, by a large majority, the invasion of Iraq!

Many people disagree with our involvement in Iraq, but not too many sensible thinkers could believe that a megalomaniac can be talked out of acquiring weapons that will help him to carry out his vow to obliterate"the great Satan"!

THE DOWNSIDE OF SOCIALISM

The British have had their own form of Socialism since Margaret Thatcher was defeated by the socialists in 1990. The French and German and most of Europe have their own forms of socialism or neo-communism as found in Italy.

Now we are faced with two Democrats that propose to take our Republic further down the road to Godless socialism, and I think it appropriate to illustrate a situation that just developed in England.

"Judges will have their freedom to set jail terms restricted and instead will be required to follow a sentencing “grid” drawn up by an independent commission, according to Government proposals. The Ministry of Justice last night conceded that the move could cut the number of short prison terms imposed and lead to more criminals being given community sentences".

The plans, which were revealed in the draft Queen’s Speech published this week, are designed to take the pressure off the overcrowded prison system. Under the scheme, judges would enter data, including information about prison resources, into a matrix which would then produce upper and lower sentences. source: News Telegraph

This is being done, because there are 82,000 people in the jails of England and Wales, and the socialist, wannabe communists, believe that too much money is being diverted from the "welfare state" to the prison system. Thus more criminals will be set free to do "community service"and the public beware!They already have problem with radical Muslim riots on the streets. Now they will have criminals freed to roam the streets as well!

This is just one more move to remove another capitalistic system from the British society, and replace it with a scheme that is designed for the "common good". To understand where the British, French and Germans are today, and where people like Obama and Hillary plan to take the USA. It is important to consider the master plan of the British Communist party as relates to the current British socialism.

The following is an excerpt from the Communist Party of Britain's "The Road To Socialism".

"Socialism will be merely the first, lower stage of communist society. The state would still be needed—not only to help plan production—but to defend the socialist system against internal and external attack.
But by continuously planning and expanding production to meet everyone’s material needs, liberating humanity from exploitation and want, socialism will lay the basis for a second, higher stage.
As the threat from capitalism recedes nationally and internationally, the socialist state begins to wither away, except for some technical and administrative functions; humanity can finally create a world free from all forms of oppression, based on common ownership of the means of production, working them co-operatively and ecologically to produce abundance for all.
The guiding principle of full communism will be: “from each according to their potential—to each according to their need.”
A new morality will characterise the social relations between people: the egotistical individualism of capitalism will be replaced by collective care and concern for every individual and for the full, all-round development of the human personality. If there is working class unity in Britain, and international solidarity with all the other major forces in the world fighting for progress and socialism, then we can defeat the moribund system of state-monopoly capitalism in Britain.
This will contribute to the liberation of working people everywhere. The socialist society for which Communists are fighting in Britain will have essential features in common with other socialist societies—but it will be constructed by the peoples of Britain, on the basis of our democratic and revolutionary heritage".

This sounds eerily like "It Takes a Village", and "We will have to take from the haves to give to the have nots". In the coming election you will have a choice between one of two affirmative action, political correct Socialist candidates --- Hillary or Obama --- and a GOP Capitalist candidate who made it the hard way, via five years in the "Hanoi Hilton". McCain is bound to be scapegoated for being white and over 50. It will not be subtle, and it is bound to happen because too many people make their living, or depend upon the Democrat form of socialism, for their "daily bread". Like the entire Democrat Party.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS BETRAY OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan. With the Congressional Democrats playing politics with funds to support their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, they need your prayers.

The "Deamoncrats" attached the proposed $162.5 billion for the wars to a veto-provoking 18-month pullout timetable, domestic programs and a tax increase.

Democrats overwhelmingly backed separate votes for pullout plans and at least $21.2 billion of domestic spending and a surtax on millionaires to pay for an expansion of GI education benefits, estimated to cost $51.6 billion over 10 years.

During the floor vote Democrats voted against troop funding by 147-85, while Republicans voted for it by 56-2, meaning the measure failed on a 149-141 vote, with 132 "present" votes, all Republican. Thus, the "mish-mash" Democrat bill combining funds for the troops and a date specific for withdrawal from Iraq tacked onto the tax increase, failed.

Of course the Democrats accused the Republicans of playing dirty politics, and the"leftist" from Wisconsin masquerading as a Democrat, David Obey, said" "Why are we subject to criticism for idiocy that the other side committed?" This one time Republican who turned Democratic because McCarthy accused one of his friend of being a Communist. Has his own share of controversy.

"On March 7, 2007, a video was posted on YouTube of Congressman Obey arguing with proponents of defunding the Iraq War about their position on how to end the war. He angrily referred to them as "idiot liberals" and told them Democrats would not cut funding for the war because it would cut funding to other vital military functions such as armor and medical supplies for U.S. military personnel, but were instead working on an amendment to order an end to the war altogether. He also stated that to one of the proponents that "...if that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal!" Obey later apologized for the incident".

source: Wikapedia

I will tell you why you are blamed Congressman Obey! Americans know the Democrats are about to establish a low in public confidence level in all of history, and it is because, for the sake of power and hate of Bush, they have stooped so low as to attach funding for men and women in harms way to a bill for troop pullout plans and at least $21.2 billion of domestic spending and a surtax on "millionaires"

The so called "Patriot Tax" proposed by Democrats, would apply to individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. It would take an extra $500 from $1 million earners, but Republicans pointed out that 82 percent of those hit would be people with small businesses.

The Democrats expected to use Republican votes to pass the war funds, but Republicans refused to follow the script, highlighting divisions among House Democrats between members who are willing to fund U.S. forces and members who want the U.S. to withdraw immediately and don't want to fund anything other than withdrawal. A final bill is not expected until next month, when the Pentagon says it will be running out of money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please write, call, email or fax your Senators and Congressmen to quit playing politics with the lives of our brave men and women in harms way!

SECRETARY DIRK KEMPTHORNE STRIKES A BLOW FOR RADICALS

In the past couple of days, the media have reported "grim" melting of ice in the Arctic while disgracefully ignoring the history of the region prior to 1979 and explorations of the area as far back as 1903.
As the Washington Post REPORTED: "The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than scientists had expected and will shrink 40 percent by 2050 in most regions, with grim consequences for polar bears, walruses and other marine animals, according to government researchers".

THE "FLY IN THE OINTMENT" IS THAT THE STUDIES THEY ARE BASING THEIR CONCLUSIONS ON WERE ONLY STARTED IN 1972, and only since 1979 have we been able to monitor the ice pack by satellite!

The outrageous conclusions were made, with a straight face, that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim, despite the fact we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the World Began - totally irrelevant?

There are historical facts that as early as 1940 a Royal Canadian wooden ship was able to transit the Northwest Passage that was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?

And even further back in history Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer, successfully navigated the Northwest Passage in August 1905!

So today Secratary Dirk Kempthorne "paid his pound of flesh" to the Ecology zealots, and declared the Polar bear was an endangered species. The ramifications for this reckless act will be felt for years to come, and in an instant made the USA more dependent upon the Arab nations that wish to destroy us!

This is the first time that the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming. There has been concern within the business community that such action could have far-reaching impact and could be used to regulate carbon dioxide.

Law suits are probably already being drawn up by the cadre of lawyers who will file the suits for monetary damages by the Ecologists against any industry that produces CO2.

Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said she's concerned Wednesday's decision will drive prolonged court battles over oil future exploration and production. The association represents 17 oil and gas companies plus the owners of a trans-Alaskan pipeline."We now have a species threatened, which is both healthy in size and population; the real risk is litigation that will follow," Crockett said. "Lawsuits will continue to be filed opposing individual operations, lease sales and permits, and that could have a significant impact on business up here."

About 15 percent of the nation's oil is being produced in Alaska, and soaring prices for the commodity are pushing companies to look farther and farther offshore to the floors of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, which are frozen much of the year.You can be sure this will come to a screeching halt thanks to this dastardly decision!

Source: Cybercast News Service

MEDIA ADVOCACY NOT NEWS REPORTING

A journalist's two points of references, when reporting a news item, should be the real truth as it relates to the important issues. But for months the focus of the election coverage has been on trivia. Every insignificant detail got blown out of proportion, with every event becoming a block buster . According to a report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, over 60 percent of election coverage by the US media has been focused on campaign strategies, tactics or personalities -- but not on actual political content.

Some, including myself, might say that the Press has become an advocate for Obama, not a reporter of events and issues surrounding this "johnny come lately" Senator.Here is a perfect example of the MSM looking the other way when questionable events happen in the Obama "camp". A story was featured in the American Thinker: "Palestinians in Gaza report that they have doubts regarding Barack Obama's devotion to the cause of Israel. Jim Geraghty of NRO's The Campaign Spot reports that Al Jazeera television had a segment on their TV station about Palestinians in Gaza running a phone bank to call American voters before primary elections and urge them to support Obama".

Even the radical pastor from Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, was not covered objectively. When he was quoted by Internet sources as giving a sermon calling the USA, "KKK America", and the same as al Qaeda, and"God damn America" because the CIA caused the AIDS and drugs crisis in the Black community. If this wasn't enough he called America "a terrorist nation", and said 9/11/01 " was the chickens coming home to roost"!

Instead they concentrated on the denial from Obama that he was not in the Church when these words were spoken, and later when he tried to distance himself from his mentor of 20 years.

The press, including the "mainstream" media, is complicit in this "act".

As soon as it was known that Obama's former pastor would reappear on TV after the furor over some of his past sermonizing, the media switched the focus to Obama's message of hope, change, inclusiveness and plans for a better America. Rather than explore the possibility that Obama like his pastor and mentor for 20 years is himself a racist! As is his wife Michelle, who has never been proud of her Country, until Obama ran for President.

The American public has not only been misled during this election campaign, but has also been fed a constant stream of irrelevant information. In one of his novels, the British writer, essayist and journalist George Orwell invented the Ministry of Truths, which he called "minitruths," with which one would try to confuse the public with small parts of the truth that even when added up do not give the whole picture. The main stream media coverage of the Obama campaign has been one of deciding before the story is written what the message will be--pro-Obama!

This despite the fact that there is no shortage of relevant issues to discuss. The upcoming US presidential election should address issues of fuel independence by opening up ANWAR and drilling off shore, growing challenges of food products costs, and relaxing the Congressional restrictions of land use for home building ,that has resulted in the punitive increases in cost of land to build homes. Revision of the tax code, controlling the massive influx of illegal aliens, and lastly what to do with A NUCLEAR Iran.

Many questions should be posed that are hard to beat in terms of real threats and concerns to the American voter. Instead the newspapers and television are fixated on promises that focus on the "needs and wants" of special interest groups. Gay and lesbian issues, socialized medicine, dialogue with our enemies and "Change" are the issues the media seems to be fixated on. WE DESERVE BETTER!

President Bush is Making a Big Mistake

The USA president, George Bush, is traveling to Suadi Arabia with "hat in Hand" to beg for more oil!This is an insult to Americans, in my opinion. Saudi Arabia doesn't even allow women to drive cars!

Moreover, they are a Muslim Country that spawned Osama Bin Laden, and the more oil we buy from them, the more money the Arabs have to spend on maintaining their tyrannical regime.

And the President is playing right into the hands of the ecological left that wants our country to lose it's military and industrial might.

According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America — 112 billion barrels — to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn’t, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains “off-limits,�� we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.

At the same time that Bush is traveling to Saudi's King, the Democrats in Congress are talking about penalizing our only source of fossil fuels, the oil companies!They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don’t invest in new energy sources. This is political demagoguery and expediency at its worst.

The oil companies will just pass their increase costs on to the consumer as would any other product producer. This exacerbates the problem without any attempt to solve the problem.All the plans now on the table do not take into consideration the fact that we have more oil available in ANWAR and "off-shore" than the oil available in Saudi Arabia!

In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent. According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America — 112 billion barrels — to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn’t!

Time to wake up America, and elect people to Congress that will allow new refineries and drilling for our known oil sources. If you don't believe me, get ready to ride your bike or walk to the grocery store in a few years, when crude oil reaches $200 or more!It is one thing to demand that we put a more expensive and more polluting bio-fuel in our cars, that will eventually destroy the fuel injectors, It is another travesty to ask our military to fight an impending war without enough gasoline and diesel to run their planes and tanks.While the Arab world and Russia have a glut of oil.

WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY?

TheFederal Budget for the National Science Foundation is 6.5 billion dollars in 2008. This is a raise of 691 million from the 2007 budget. Many people may not know that this money is used for basic research as well as social research. A large portion of the money is spent on such controversial subjects as stem cell research, global warming and genetically modified foods.

Additionally the government allocated 17.3 billion of our tax dollars for NASA to use for Planetary research. Included in this budget is monies for trying to find life on the planets millions of miles away!

While we waste billions trying to find proof of the Big Bang theory. The Chinese Communists are developing a weapon to shoot down space satallites as this exerpt from the Russian Space Agency News illustrates. "China started its own year in space in 2007, demonstrating an impressive capability to shut down enemy satellites in space. According to the Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, quoting US officials, the anti-satellite missile lifted off from the Xichang site on January 11, 2007, lofting a "kill vehicle," which then directly impacted and destroyed a functioning Chinese satellite.

In 2005 the Republican Congress attempted to cut the size of government to reduce the tax burden on Americans. Of course the Democrats in the Senate opposed their proposal that included over $500 billion in cuts to government programs over five years, including significant cuts to NASA, Amtrak subsidies, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Peace Corps, foreign aid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the national park system, community health centers, and agricultural subsidies. The present(2008) Congress has approved massive tax dollar expenditures to aid the bio-fuels fiasco!

In 2006 the Federal Government paid for 340 billion dollars for Reasearch and development. Much of this was for good practical reason applicable to our lives, but much was spent on nonsense!

One example of a waste of our taxpayers money can be found in the "research" done by Helen Hansma who is trying to debunk the Intelligent Design theory, that life was created by a Supreme Devine Being(GOD) , by proving that life began in the depths of the ocean from one celled slime.

December 4, 2007: "Earth's first life may have developed between the layers of a chunk of layered mica sitting like a multilayered sandwich in the primordial soup, according to a new hypothesis. The so called "soup and sandwich" mica hypothesis, which was developed by Helen Hansma of the National Science Foundation (NSF), proposes that that the compartments between layers of mica -- a common mineral that cleaves into smooth sheets -- could have provided the shelter and protection needed for molecules to reorganize into cells.Hansma will present her "soup and sandwich" mica hypothesis at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in Washington D.C,. on December 4, 2007.
Hansma says that her "soup and sandwich" mica hypothesis is supported by several lines of evidence, including the many chemical and physical similarities between a cell interior and the space between mica sheets. For example, both environments are potassium-rich and negatively-charged. Such similarities suggest that mica "would have provided a very hospitable environment to the earliest biomolecules," says Hansma.

The conclusion that we as humans come from a "soup and sandwich" of ocean slime is an insult to all Christians Jews, and all religious people who believe in a Supreme Being. It is an example of the many ways special interest groups live off of taxpayers hard work by alleged research that ends with the conclusion that it, "Might BE!"

And if this is not enough to wake you, consider the fact that your tax dollars could soon be used to be part of "Big Brother" watching our vehicle emissions. This from NASA: " As envisioned, NASA's atmospheric remote sensing technology will be adapted to an autonomous roadside system to monitor motor vehicle emissions. Cars and trucks will pass through a low-power light beam, without stopping or slowing down. Space-age sensor technology will instantly analyze vehicle exhaust pollutants important to local and state governments working to meet federally mandated air quality standards".
"Taking an accurate reading of several exhaust products as a car passes by is a formidable challenge. We want to take a measurement of all the gases of interest every one thousandth of a second over a period of a half-second".

Billions to record the motor vehicle emissions in America while China and India continue to polute the air in an un- regulated manner! Go Figure!

Power Drives Politicians

Too many people who will go to the polls next November will be voting because of what the person they will vote for has promised they will do for the voter. Love of self and the drift towards the "big brother will take care of me" philosophy, has made voters pawn of wordsmiths who can eloquently promises things they know will be impossible to produce. Things that a large portion of the population feel they need and have a right to have.

The problem is it takes the Congress and the President to deliver Presidential campaign promises, and that spirit of co-operation has not existed since the Roosevelt "reign" during the years of WWII.

Advocacy politics is really about the quest for power. The power to accomplish the politicians quest to attain a powerful position in the here and now and in history.

We are faced with two Democrats who are both radical leftists hiding in "sheep's clothing" and a Republican who can be best described as left leaning moderate in John McCain.

The only decision for the voters is who will maintain our free capitalist system if elected, and not try to march us further down the road to Godless Socialism?

Many media sources have noted the radical acquaintances of Obama like Bill Ayers and his radical Pastor Wright. They also hav wrotten and spoken about the Clinton's association with Charley Trie, Chung, Riady,John Huang and the Lippo banks. But there has been little coverage of both having connections with the political philosophy of a Chicago activist named Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), an advocate of "power" politics. He once said this:"“The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself.” – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

To help those who drop by to read my blog, I enclose an article written in 2007 by Richard Poe, which illustrates the background and basic philosophic principles that motivate two of the candidates. Bloggers note: So enthralled with Alinsky, she brought Saul Alinsky to the Wellesley campus to give his views on revolution. So worshipful was she that Alinsky offered her a job after she graduated. She turned him down to continue her studies. source:Newsweek

"Most Americans never heard of Saul Alinsky. Yet his shadow darkens our coming election. Democrat front runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.
In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.
Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.
In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti – Al Capone’s second-in-command – gave Alinsky clout on the street.
In our book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party, my co-author David Horowitz and I trace the rise of Alinsky’s political influence since the 1930s.
He excelled at wooing wealthy funders. Start-up money for his Industrial Areas Foundation – a training school for radical organizers – came from department-store mogul Marshall Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy, and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for Franklin Roosevelt.

Alinsky once boasted, “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.”
One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.
Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky’s work in Chicago slums. Her series, called “The Orderly Revolution”, made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.
During the Sixties, Alinsky wielded tremendous power behind the scenes.
When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects.
In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky’s circle.
After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky’s shakedown. The two men had an “understanding”, Alinsky later wrote.
Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.
Alinsky tried to hire Hillary as a community organizer, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School. Nonetheless, Alinsky’s network continued guiding Hillary’s career.
Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.
The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian “Hillary’s closest sister and ideological soulmate”. Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.
Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.
Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.
That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public.
That is the Alinsky method. And that is today’s Democratic Party".

Do we really want to trip merrily down the road toward the kind of Government that asks you to give up your freedom to make your own way, for a government that takes care of you from cradle to grave in a way that it feels is best for you and the "common good"!