Wednesday, November 5, 2008



A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

WE HAVE REJECTED THE WISDOM OF OUR FOUNDERS...

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. --George Washington

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. --Thomas Jefferson

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. --Patrick Henry

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. --Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. --Thomas Jefferson

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. --Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. --Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. --Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. --Thomas Jefferson

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. --Thomas Jefferson

Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thomas Jefferson

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. --Thomas Jefferson

Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people. --Thomas Jefferson

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. --Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. --Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. --Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. --Thomas Jefferson

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. --Thomas Jefferson

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? --Patrick Henry

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
George Washington

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! --Patrick Henry

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
George Washington

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
--Thomas Jefferson

Monday, November 3, 2008

Obama Plans on Bankrupting The Coal Industry



We get over half our electricity from Coal. When he bankrupts the coal industry your electricity price will skyrocket and there will be shortages. Prepare for economic chaos! They will make us a third world country yet. Meanwhile, China will have cheep electric with coal and thus all manufacturing will go to China killing US manufacturing forever.  And McCain wants to do the same thing on a smaller scale. 

VOTE THIRD PARTY:  CHUCK BALDWIN

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Why is Socialism so evil? Because It means we are not free.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

So Much For A Free Press.... Under O'CommieBama

Obama is refusing to talk to reporters who ask hard questions and kicked reporters off his plane who were skeptical of his message. So much for free press and encouraging debate of the issues. Obama said he would have the most "open" administration in history. Hardly! If you ask questions he doesn't like you will be black listed forever. Socialism always breeds authoritarians. He is JUST LIKE G.W. Bush in this regaurd.















Friday, October 31, 2008

Too Much Power In Government ALWAYS Causes Abuse

THEY WILL USE THEIR POWER TO SPY ON ANYONE WHO DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM.

Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.

Niekamp didn't know she just had checked on "Joe the Plumber," who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain's example in a debate of an average American.

The senior manager would not learn about "Joe" for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.

The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are "thrust into the public spotlight," amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.

Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. "I've never done that before, I don't know of anybody in my office who does that and I don't remember anyone ever doing that," she said today.

Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland and Jones-Kelley, both supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, have denied political motives in checking on Wurzelbacher. The Toledo-area resident later endorsed McCain. State officials say any information on "Joe" is confidential and was not released.

Today, Strickland press secretary Keith Dailey said neither the governor's office nor Job and Family Services officials could comment due to an ongoing investigation by Ohio's inspector general. Republican legislators are demanding to know whether state computers were accessed in an attempt to dig up dirt on Wurzelbacher.

Jones-Kelley has revealed that her agency also checked to see if Wurzelbacher was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes. "Joe the Plumber" has said he is not involved in a child-support case.

About 3 p.m. on Oct. 16, Niekamp said Carrie Brown, assistant deputy director for child support, asked her to run Wurzelbacher through the computer. Citing privacy laws, Niekamp would not say what, if anything, was found on "Joe."

On Oct. 23, Niekamp said Doug Thompson, deputy director for child support, told her she had checked on "Joe the Plumber." Thompson "literally demanded" that she write an e-mail to the agency's chief privacy officer stating she checked the case for child-support purposes, she said.

Thompson told her that Jones-Kelley said Wurzelbacher might buy a plumbing business and could owe support. Thompson said he replied that he "would check him out."

Worried about her $69,000-a-year job and potential criminal charges, the 15-year state employee said she went to Inspector General Thomas P. Charles on Oct. 24. She has seen employees fired, and dismissed one herself, for illegally accessing personal information in support cases.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Case Against Obama Citizenship Goes To Supreme Court

Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg will be at the United States Supreme Court at 3:15 p.m. today to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as well as an application to Justice Souter–the applicable Justice given this region–for an immediate injunction to stay the presidential election currently only five days away.

Berg, who filed suit in district court here in Philadelphia back on August 21 alleging that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States, said that he hopes the Supreme Court will "do the right thing" by the United States Constitution and the American people and hear the case on its merits and, in so doing, avoid a constitutional crisis.

"This crisis can be averted," Berg said, "if the Supreme Court grants the injunction pending a review of this case, if the Court insists that Obama turn over certified documentation showing that he is a ‘natural born’ United States Citizen. If he cannot produce that documentation, he should be removed from the presidential ballot."

Berg’s case was dismissed a week ago tomorrow by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on grounds that Berg could not prove injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing to sue. In his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Berg insists that he does have standing, and that much of the harm was caused by Obama’s failure to live up to his promises to uphold the United States Constitution. 

Isn't the constitution a contract with the people of the US and thus wouldn't any citizen have the right to go to court when someone who is not a US citizen runs for office? 

According to Berg, a television crew from Fox News Channel will be present to follow him as he files the documents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, a rally is being planned for 3:00 p.m. today on the steps of the Court.


Go Here to Listen to Bergs Case against Obama:

If you think Obama and Biden wont try to take your guns away then watch these two videos.

Here is Obama's voting record on guns:



And Here is Biden:

MIT scientists doubt man made global warming...

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

More study

Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

Obama's Prime Time Mulit-million Dollar LIE


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than honest in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE LIE: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE LIE: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE LIE: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

THE LIE: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE LIE: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.

THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.

Government Uses Power To Silence Average Joe

Click Picture




John McCain is a Marxist Socialist too


Isn’t it a little late for John McCain and the Republicans to start worrying about government redistribution of wealth? McCain claims to be alarmed by Barack Obama’s tax plan, which would tax upper-income people in order to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income people, many of whom don’t pay income taxes. McCain and running-mate Sarah Palin call this socialism.

But the criticism is odd considering all the redistribution McCain has proposed in his presidential campaign and has supported during his long career. His proposed reform of medical insurance includes a tax credit so people can buy their own insurance. That may sound like standard Republican fare, except this tax credit is “refundable.” This is one of those Washington terms designed to conceal the truth. One ordinarily would think that only someone who actually pays income tax could get a credit against the tax. If your tax bill is $10,000, a $5,000 tax credit would reduce the bill to $5,000. But if someone pays no income tax, the tax credit would not apply, right?

It would apply if the credit were “refundable.” With a $5,000 refundable tax credit, someone paying zero tax would get a check for $5,000. That money must come from someone else. It can’t really be a refund.

If McCain thinks Obama’s tax cut for nontaxpayers is socialism, why isn’t his health plan socialism also?

McCain might say that people who pay no income tax are hit with the payroll (FICA) tax, but Obama could say that too. But since that tax finances Social Security and Medicare benefits, both candidates’ plans still entail redistribution.

McCain proposes to have the government buy up mortgages in which the amount owed exceeds the current value of the houses. Under the plan the banks would be paid the face value of the mortgages and the government would then refinance them at a lower principal and interest rate. The taxpayers, of course, would pay the difference. Isn’t that redistribution?

He also supports the bailout of Wall Street financial institutions and the partial nationalization of banks. So where does he get off accusing Obama of socialism?

This is nothing new. McCain and most Republicans have supported socialistic redistribution for a long time. I don’t recall their resisting President Bush’s humongous Medicare expansion that included prescription drugs. The program subsidizes lower-income people. So does the rest of Medicare and Social Security. And let’s not forget Medicaid.

The progressive income tax itself is intended to transfer money from those who earn more to those who earn less or nothing at all. But the principle of tax progressivity is rarely challenged by the GOP leadership. They brag about dropping low-income people off the tax rolls. Occasional lip service is paid to the flat tax, but that does not escape the charge of redistriubtionism, either. Under flat-tax theory, a single rate would apply to everyone’s income. But in every flat-tax plan, there is a zero bracket exempting low-income people from the tax. Moreover, under a flat tax those who make more money would pay more than those who make less money. Ten percent of $1 million is more than 10 percent of $35,000. Assuming that government services are not allocated according to the amount of tax paid, we must conclude that a flat tax also redistributes income.

Finally, McCain and Palin, as champions of a big aggressive military establishment, support the massive transfer of the taxpayers’ money to the military-industrial complex.

Any forced transfer of wealth is an immoral violation of freedom. Both parties are guilty. So McCain and the Republicans should be careful about hurling the charge of socialism.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com.

Is My Vote Wasted?

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:

http://www.baldwin08.com/

As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

Global Cooling On The Rise!


First October snow since 1922 blankets London as global warming bill debated...

Switzerland sees most snow for October since records began...

Florida breaks 150 year Frost record...

Share this video with a friend...

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Being A Leader In the Axis of Evil Very Unhealthy


"Axis of evil" is a term coined by United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 in order to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. President Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in his speech. Ironically, these very nations leaders have had "problems" and are all less than healthy now.


Iraq: Sadam Hussien is Dead
North Korea: Kim Jong Ill is very Ill indeed (click name to read more)
Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also very sick to the point he can't stand on his own. (click for more info.)
MEANWHILE...

Russian rights lawyer suspects she was poisoned

The medias says there is a growing popularity of Political Assassinations

UPDATE: 10 people affected by poison that killed former Soviet spy...

MORE POISON? Mystery illness hits former Russian PM...

MILOSEVIC WROTE: 'THEY WANT TO POISON ME'... A DAY LATER, HE WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CELL...

Covering Up Another Terrorist In Obama's Past AGAIN


Obama has more communists, radicals and terrorist friends in his closet than Bill Clinton had bimbos. Every other day another shoe drops. Click here to see the list of his "friends."

The Los Angeles Times has been accused of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.

The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources." Yeah right!

Our First Openly Marxist President?


Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of …Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Monday, October 27, 2008

The state is for the people, not people for the state.

Prosperity and security will not last long where there is no liberty for the individual. Only when the state protects the rights of the individual will the individuals be able to protect the state from invasion from outside enemies. When the state takes the away the rights of the individual in the name of providing prosperity and protecting security, it creates a state not worth saving and incapable of prosperity. You can’t protect freedom by taking it away from the people. There is no enemy so great we must sacrifice liberty and individual freedom to conquer it. In fact, our freedom from state intrusion is our greatest defense against all foes. The greatest threat to our freedom, prosperity and security are those who would trade our individual rights for false claims of protection and prosperity of stronger central government. – The Patriot Underground

CAUGHT ON TAPE: BARACK OBAMA'S TRUE MARXIST AGENDA



HOW CAN THIS MAN BE AHEAD IN THE POLLS IN THE USA???? GOD HELP US!