Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism

Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism
From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2008-10-27 17:08

One of the recurring themes in my essays is the realization that the West didn't win the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. A generation after we "defeated" Marxism, Marxist-inspired groups control much of the Western education system as well as Western media and form alliances with our enemies, especially Islamic ones. I have concentrated on Europe, but this is a problem in North America as well. Barack Hussein Obama represents the triumph of cultural Marxism; or perhaps we should simply say Marxism. One generation after Ronald Reagan led the USA to "victory," a person with Marxist sympathies could be about to be elected President of the USA. When the Nazis were defeated they were seen as evil, as they should be. When the Communists were "defeated," they were not seen as evil; they are misguided individuals with good intentions, a bit like Santa Claus with a bad hair day.

Journalist Stanley Kurtz has done an excellent job at tracking the many ties to radical organizations in Obama's personal history. Dr.Daniel Pipes lists some of the indirect ties he has to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Nation of Islam. Pipes states that "Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief."

In my view, it's insane that the United States can even contemplate electing a person such as Obama. Americans will look like a defeated nation to the rest of the world if they pick an individual who has for a generation been a member of an organization dedicated to hating the majority population of the country. That's exactly why so many of their enemies want him elected. Meanwhile, 7 years after Saudi Arabian Muslims staged Jihadist attacks against the United States, the Saudis are systematically infiltrating the Western education system at all levels with pro-Islamic propaganda. Americans are outsourcing their industry to China, their education system to Saudi Arabia and their breeding to Mexico. This is not a wise strategy followed by a country that wants to remain a superpower, or simply continue to exist.

A person with such a radical background should never have been close to nomination. The only reason why Obama got so far is because the media deliberately downplayed much of the most troubling information about him. The mass hysteria whipped up in favor of Obama in the press is disturbing. A person who had been a member of an openly anti-black or anti-Asian congregation for a couple of decades would never have been seriously considered for presidency, but being a member of an anti-white congregation is apparently OK. This tells us much about the cultural climate in the West at the moment.

The term "Fascist" is so misused that people no longer remember its original meaning. A "Fascist" is now any person to the right of Hillary Clinton, especially if he's white and doesn't like Multiculturalism. However, the personality cult surrounding Obama is a traditional hallmark of Fascist and Communist societies. When an average voter dared to ask a few critical questions about Obama's Socialist sympathies, he was virtually ambushed by members of the mainstream media. This is the kind of behavior one expects to see in authoritarian societies when someone questions the Divine Wisdom of the Great Leader. It is disappointing and not very reassuring to see it in the land of the free, home of the brave.As journalist Nidra Poller put it: "The chance encounter between Barack Obama and a commoner—Joe the Plumber—not only exposed the Hope & Change candidate's plan for redistribution of wealth, it also revealed his attitude toward the ordinary guys he has pledged to serve. Leftists everywhere love the wretched of the earth…as long as the poor stay poor and the downtrodden downtrodden."

The Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of the book Understanding Muhammad, comments on the dark sides of Obama's personality:

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer


"Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It's only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar. When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader."


"If Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades."



I don't agree with everything Sina says, but I am pretty sure an Obama presidency would dramatically increase racial and ideological tensions within the USA; I cannot see him "heal" anything. I agree that such displays of personality cult are always a sign of dark ideological undercurrents. Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents in American history. I don't recall that there ever was a "Carter Youth" movement in the 1970s or people claiming that he was the Messiah, but we do have an "Obama Youth" movement. This is unprecedented, a disturbing indication that the world's most powerful state no longer thinks in rational terms. Obama represents everything the American Founding Fathers tried to avoid when they wanted to make their young nation a constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

World History - As it Really Happened

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girliemen.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, home interior designers, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to actually work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the
Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.
A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers. And to more liberals just to piss them off!!!!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Obama fails Security Clearance standard.

Would Obama Pass a Standard Security Clearance?

Daniel Pipes

With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democrat candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."

First, Obama's ties to Islamists:

· The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Al-Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour, a black American (nĂ© Don Warden), became advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Al-Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem, and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and al-Mansour deny Sutton's account.)

· The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a south Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)

· The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.

· The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."

Second, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam: Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for 20 years, came out of a Nation background, recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."

Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the Messiah."

That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

Monday, October 20, 2008

McCain set to win by a landslide!

McCain Set To Win by Landslide! The Polls vs. Reality in Presidential Elections


2008 Presidential Election
John McCain Barack Obama
Why McCain is set for a landslide victory if Obama is up by less than 6 pts in the polls before election day.

What? What are you talking about you might ask. Especially if you haven’t been around and this is the first Presidential election that you are getting into.

Not only will I show you how McCain wins if the polls stay similar to what they are as of this writing on October 18th, 2008. With Obama leading so close to even the margin of error in a few polls, take a look as of today:

Rasmussen’s Presidential Tracking Barack Obama leading John McCain by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent.
Gallup’s national tracking poll of likely voters has Obama leading McCain by two points, 49 percent to 47 percent.
AP/Yahoo shows Obama leading McCain by two points, 44%-42%
The Reuters/C-Span/Zogby national tracking survey shows Obama leading McCain by five points, 49%-44%.
The GW/Battleground tracking poll has Obama leading McCain by four points, 49%-45%.
Zogby Link

For those of you that don’t know what this means, it means that McCain is set for a huge near landslide in the elections. See below as to why and examples from the last 5 Presidential elections. The people who will be shocked are those in the media. Even though they know the polling from the past juxtaposed with the actual election results is never very kind to the Democrats. They are so hyped on McCain losing and Obama winning, that they fail to be objective in the least.
FLASHBACKS of Past Elections together with actual Results
2004 Presidential Election
George Bush John Kerry

2004 Election - Bush vs. Kerry - Even the Exit polls had Kerry winning by over 3-4 pts! This is the poll done by people coming out of the voting booths. How can the media get this one wrong? This shocked the media! (Link - Study)
Bush won over John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004.
Instead of losing by 4 pts, Bush won by over 2 pts. That is over a 6 plus point difference in how the media called it. This is also after the media called Kerry the winner and polls were still open in many states, a move to clearly taint the election results by making Republicans think it was a lost cause. (Keep this 6 point difference in mind going forward) 2004 Election Results CNN
2000 Presidential Election
George Bush Al Gore

2000 Election - The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 to 39 percent.
Bush won (and lost the popular vote by 500K votes) by 48% to 48%.
The media has Gore winning by 6, but he lost with a tie in percentage of votes. Still a consistent 6% that the media gives the Democrat over the Republican. 2000 Election results
1996 Presidential Election

Bill Clinton Ross Perot Bob Dole

1996 Election - Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent. Is the NY Times and CBS ever right or fair?
Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent.
Ross Perot got 8.4% percent of voters this year. The majority of Perot’s voters (over 74%) admitted they would have voted Republican if Ross Perot wasn’t in election. On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent. That’s a another massive difference from what the media told us. Had it not been for Ross Perot, Clinton would have lost the election. Election 1996 Wikipedia
1992 Presidential Election

Bill Clinton George Bush Sr.

1992 Election - In 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead.
Clinton Wins 43.01% to Bush Sr. 37.45% to 18.9% for Ross Perot.
Once again, it seems that the only way a Democrat can win the White House these days is for a third party candidate that shows strongly. The Democrats are always given at least 6% more estimated voters in polls vs the Republican. If you take out the strong independent candidates like Ross Perot, The Democrat will lose the election. 1992 Election results
1988 Presidential Election

George Bush Sr. Michael Dukakis

1988 Election - Michael Dukakis was leading in polls up to Election day, most polls had him up by 3 - 5 points the day before the election (NY Times). Exit polls mostly showed the race a little tighter. Dukakis up by only 2 pts.
Bush Sr. 53.4% of vote vs. 45.6% for Dukakis.
Since there were no third party candidates to take Republican votes away from Bush Sr, one poll in the media had him losing by up to 15 points just weeks before the election. He ended up winning by almost 8 pts. If we look at the polls before the day before the election showing Bush down by 3-5%, and Bush won by 8%, the media was off by a whopping 11% on the low end. Compared to exit polls, Bush received over 6% more votes than what the media told the public he would get. 1988 Election results.

For more examples see comments below. Reagan vs Mondale and Reagan vs Carter, same exact situation except maybe even more pronounced for the Republicans than any above.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by almost 10 points, 51 % to 41% Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent. link

America is Right of Center Politically

The Fact of the matter is Americans are Right - Center focused in politics. Literally the only way for a Democrat to win in a Presidential election (short of disaster and not terror related) is to have a strong third party candidate that can take the votes away from the Republican. Couple this with a massive media effort as always to defeat whomever the Republican is, and you have a near recipe for success. This success comes only with the massive amount of cover-ups by the media as well as the total support for its candidate.
The Media must make their candidate more acceptable to the American public.

For nearly 30 years now the media will alter the publics view of a candidate in such a way as to hide anything that shows what the Democratic candidates policies really entail.
Current Election Controversies

Ayers Controversy - Remember the last debate? Obama said he is just a neighbor, not friends at all with the domestic terrorist that blew up and killed people here in America and who detests the United States. Open Lie (link) and proven to be a lie! Sure, Ayers was just a neighbor the media will tell you. This article has some lies detailed that the American media is all to willing to look the other way on. More on this

If anyone here wants to be honest about things, the fact is that Barack Obama could never have won the Democratic nomination had it not been for the massive Liberal bias in the media, coupled with the racism of African American voters. See Special Report Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media. Hillary Clinton knows this all too well as she was a virtual shoe-in for the Democratic nomination until the further left candidate Obama swept in with the help of the media.
Media Credibility at All Time Lows

Media credibility is also at an all time low according to Pew. Pew Finds Media Credibility Plummets to All-Time Lows . The public sees through the fiasco being supported by the mainstream media,

The American people in poll after poll and in greater and growing numbers are railing against the egregious liberal bias of the press. And nowhere are the media more horrendously slanted than in their coverage of the presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. They are (to say the least) very, very sweet on him.

The MRC has put together this college basketball tournament-style bracket event, the Sweet-On-Obama Sixteen Media Bias Tournament, so that these angered members of the media’s audience can vote for who gives Sen. Obama the most loving and fawning coverage of all.
Summary

Without the media’s intense bias for Barack Obama, or any Democratic candidate, they fall short of being able to win a Presidential election. Through massive cover-ups and omitting of basic facts, the Democrat miraculously polls a consistent 6% - 15% more in poll after poll, than it does in the actual election.

To illustrate the effectiveness of media bias one need only take the following quote to ponder.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Norman Thomas said this, American socialist, and one of the founders of the ACLU as well as 3 time Presidential candidate as a Socialist right here in the USA.

Why I bring this little tidbit up is the fact that the American public will simply not vote away their freedom if told the truth. America is not a friend of socialism and any candidate who is one, has little chance of victory. Which is why the media is now doing its best to prevent you from finding out yet another lie of the Obama campaign. The lie being that he was never a member of the socialist New Party of Chicago, a socialist party started by the Democratic Socialists of America. The proof has just surfaced from tamper-proof sources, such as Amazon.com’s Internet Archive. see proof and link Amazon.com to Barack: You Are a Socialist, We’ve proven it!

Lessons of the past

Just VOTE! All you have to do is vote and not be discouraged by the media’s constant attack on whoever the Republican is. You will after a few elections be able to see past the clouds of lies and come to understand how desperate the left truly is.

Even in this time of recession (which was caused by forcing banks to make sub-prime loans to people who could not afford them - 100% caused by the Community Reinvestment Act passed by the Democrats and Obama see video for proof) the Democratic candidate cannot break away from polling right above the margin of error. It does not look good for Obama, the declared winner according to the media of the election weeks before the election.
Bookie Paying out on Obama Win, You didn’t hear the whole story as usual

By the way, the media is as right on this election as that Bookie who is already paying out on Obama winning the Presidency, see also this CNN link Now ask yourself how it is that the story was all over the media, yet the media will not tell you the rest of the story of how this bookie is usually wrong with his politically tinged payouts. Example is the EU vote that he also paid out, and lost. Which makes me think that this is one dumb bookie, don’t you think? If he keeps paying out on the losing side before votes are even cast how long will they stay in business? Here’s another politically motivated payout that they lost on. See a pattern? The media covers the whole story up by omiting how this bookie is doing it only for publicity and seems to always be wrong. I can’t really believe a bookie is that stupid as to pay out for no profit, without even getting the results in this case for weeks.

They do this so you think what they want you to think. Which is even bookies have called the election for Obama. What a laugh now that you know the truth huh!

The media truly believes and will lie and say anything and omit anything to ensure that Obama is destined to be the first secretly Socialist President of the United States of America. Not going to happen!

Which means John McCain is set for a near landslide on election day. Spread the word to everyone you know. The media cannot stop you from learning the truth.