Here’s an interesting article I found on the
It makes me wonder.
Is this Barack Obama’s Brain on Drugs?
We all know the difference between normal mistakes and those that hint at a
deeper, more frightening problem, such as Alzheimer’s or another brain
condition. In light of this, how do you interpret a shocking mistake
recently made by Barack Obama?
Terry Jeffrey of CNS News: In two campaign speeches over the last
two days, President Barack Obama has twice mistakenly mentioned “my sons” when
defending his administration’s regulation requiring virtually all health-care
plans in the United States to provide women, without any fees or co-pay, with
sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives,
including those that can cause abortions.
Given that Obama has, ostensibly, only daughters, where does such a mistake
come from? And how do you make it twice on two different occasions
without correcting yourself? Then again, how can an American president say, “I’ve now been in 57
states, I think – one left to go” without correcting himself? Yes,
Obama’s most recent bizarre slip of the mind makes me think of that older,
equally bizarre one. I mean, there are mistakes.
Then there are mistakes.
After all, it’s ingrained in every American child when extremely little that
our nation has 50 states. Fifty states, fifty states, fifty states, fifty
states…. It should just roll off the tongue – in just the way the word
“daughters” should when girls are all you’ve ever had.
Of course, this invites the quip – and it’s a good example of how there’s
some truth behind every joke – that “American child” never described Obama, at
least not in spirit. But another possibility suggests itself:
Is Barack Obama brain-damaged?
I’m not just being a wise-guy. With the president’s admitted past drug
use and the recent revelations about how he was a member of the “Choom Gang” in
high school, is it hard to imagine that he might have damaged his mind through
the abuse of recreational drugs?
“Choom,” by the way, is slang for smoking marijuana. And it seems that
this gang activity was Obama’s favorite extra-curricular option in high
ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My
Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about
eating green eggs and ham. As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would
smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm
room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of
He would smoke it here and there. He would smoke it anywhere.
Yes, I do like it, Uncle Scam I am. In fact, as the Choom Gang story
goes, Obama was a veritable Nikola Tesla of weed use who would actually start
“pot-smoking trends.” Add to this a diversity in drug inclinations that
led him to dabble also in hard drugs, and perhaps it explains the soft head.
Of course, as for calling girls “sons,” there are other explanations.
Perhaps Obama is like those parents who don’t want to sex stereotype their
children and thus are very pleased when their son dresses as a girl; maybe
he’ll now refer to Malia and Sasha as sons half the time. Perhaps he
subscribes to the fashionable LBGT idea that “gender” is all a matter of
perception. Heck, apparently he already believes that one’s ideology and
economic model needn’t have a relationship to reality.
Then, American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson theorizes that
the explanation may be that Obama is hiding more than just a sordid past,
writing: It has never occurred to me that
Barack Obama might have a second secret family, as Charles Kurault did, hidden
from his first family (pardon the pun) and the general public. I still
find this hard to believe. But what kind of brain freeze or
derangement leads someone to refer to my sons, when two daughters are the only
fruit of conception one has created?
Perhaps the freeze symptomatic of a fried brain?
Then again, Dr. Lifson could be right. Maybe Obama had more of a
reason than we think to say that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.
All joking aside, the only thing we can know for sure about Obama is that
he’s a very bizarre man. He had an absentee father, and, in his
high-school yearbook, he acknowledged a drug dealer but not his quasi-absentee
mother. He seems to have received more ideology than love, as he was
mentored by communist-party member Frank Marshall Davis, was drawn to Marxist
professors in college and was a member of the socialist New Party in the
1990s. And when you consider this, it’s not surprising that he turned to
drugs during adolescence: it’s what kids with troubled upbringings often do.
As to this, C.S. Lewis once wrote something very profound about the
significance of upbringing: No justification of virtue will enable
a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect
is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against
a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that “a
gentleman does not cheat”, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who
had been brought up among sharpers.
It’s hard to know for sure how scarred, in mind and soul, Obama is as a
result of his bizarre youth. But should we continue to take the chance of
letting him play America’s
Just when you thought that nothing new from socialist Obama could shock you; he
again makes a move towards the Left.
This time, he has embraced the advances towards a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
And here is what he is about to order via his Executive Order---Mr. Obama wants
to transfer some quadrants of the oceans now under United States control
directly to the United Nations! Signed...sealed...delivered!
NO Congress---NO treaty---NO vote by Americans---NO National Discussions---SOLELY BY HIS "POWER" OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS!
His sinister plan is still in draft form. But we must fight this tooth and
nail. We cannot let the president just give away hundreds of thousands of
square miles of ocean at his whim. Your faxes must REVERSE this outrageous act!
Obama wants to cede parts of United States oceans to United Nations-based international law. An
international body, the United Nations, would have control and REGULATE much of
the oceans that the United states now has jurisdiction over!
Obama's draft calls for an Executive Order for a "National Ocean
Policy." This policy is yet another over-reach of the federal government
in relationship to the eco-system that will be regulated by the federal
government; AND---turn over part of the ocean's quadrant to the
regulations set forth by the United Nations.
That, in itself, is very frightening. However, it is just the tip of the
iceberg as to the extent that Mr. Obama is leaning towards a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
Let us explain.....
The original "ocean initiative" was the pet project of Leon Panetta,
now our current Defense Secretary. Before Panetta's CIA Director appointment in 2009, he co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, a partner of CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (CGS). CGS is a strong
supporter (and a Member organization) of the World Federalist Movement. Without reservation or apology, their
literature openly states they support a One-World Government!
The CGS is considered by the World Federalist Movement to be its branch in the United States! Incidentally, their offices are within blocks of
the United Nations' headquarters in New York City and also right near the International Criminal Court
in The Hague, Netherlands. Coincidence? Not on your life! One must continually
"connect the dots" to see the pattern of how Mr. Obama has brought America to the very brink of participating in a One World
This National Ocean Policy is a result of the Interagency Ocean Policy
Taskforce, also created by an Obama Executive Order in 2010. This taskforce has
released a 78-page report which caters to the alleged effects of "global
warming." The report proposes that the United States join the United Nations' "Law of the Sea
This Law of the Sea Convention is used as a legal instrument to GOVERN
activities under, over and on the world's oceans.
By becoming a part of this, to embrace the additional guidelines formed in this
devastating report, would further ERODE our national security, by being under
the desires and whims of the United Nations when it comes to ocean regulations.
Obama's supposed selling point: to help the world's environment!
That may sound nice to the Leftists at election time, but not to true,
patriotic Americans. I know you do not want to give away large portions of the
oceans that we control to a One World Government!
This supposed bipartisan ocean initiative says that its purpose is to
"accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy
"Working together to build the political will in the United States" to reach this worldwide vision is what CGS
wants to accomplish.
This is a very, very dangerous draft moving towards another disastrous
Executive Order. Here is what this EO will accomplish:
An outright giving away of parts of the oceans controlled by the United States
A giant first-step towards a One World Government
Give the United Nations even more power OVER the United States, while we pay the "lion's share" of
A tremendous over-reach by our federal government
Be one of the worst Executive Orders ever promulgated by a
Yet, Barack Obama continues to go forward in this "opportunist
measure" to give away parts of OUR oceans to the UN world body!
And George Soros is effectually behind this measure also.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council also comprises of John
Podesta, former co-chairman of the Obama presidential transition team. Podesta
is the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress which advises
Obama on various policies. This organization is funded by George Soros. http://cyberpolyticks.blogspot.com/2012/05/public-enemy-number-one.html
The taskforce proposes to the president a well-devised, but dangerous
"plan" to obtain the objective of: "an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our
coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and
understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and
security of present and future generations."
The United Nations' regulation of our oceans is not right at all.
It gives away our sovereign rights.
And, more importantly, pushes us towards a One World Government.
But, this is "par for the course" of Barack Obama.
knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read
This is legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org
Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell. (Talk about
His Imperial Majesty, a Former Constitutional Law Lecturer, makes up
Constitutional Quotes during State of the
Union (SOTU) Address.
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard
Law Review, is no longer a
"lawyer". He surrendered his
license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.
"Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a
license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to
renew your license. No, a
"Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of
something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds
before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in
1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license
or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law
professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional
Law Professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a
title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for
the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha
Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at
the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the
other night during his State of the Union
Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited
was from the Declaration of Independence .. not the Constitution.
9. FreeRepublic: In the State of the
Union Address, President Obama said:
"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise
enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr.
President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights.
The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme
Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony and a liar, it's hard to keep facts straight.
If you do not vote AGAINST
this phony liar, (who is not eligible nor
qualified to be President) then YOU are part of the problem.
Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought, has
been typically portrayed as the nearly inevitable evolution upward from the
primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and
Not “world government,” wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers in America,
but a rebranded alternative, more nuanced and sophisticated, would creep in on
little cat feet before the Neanderthals knew what was up.
American exceptionalism was on its way to the ash heap. Terms like shared
and pooled sovereignty were bandied about like new types of cell phones rather
than fundamental shifts in the relationship between citizens and state.
Multilateral treaties on an astounding array of issues were in prospect—not
just the usual subjects of international relations, but matters heretofore
quintessentially decided by nation-states: gun control, abortion, the death
penalty, among others.
Although George W. Bush’s troublesome flag-waving tenure represented an
unwelcome bump on the road, Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration was surely the high
point of global governance’s advance. Here was a
president who saw global warming as the threat it was, promising to stop the
seas from rising. This self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” rejected U.S.
unilateralism, took the United Nations seriously, and understood that European
Union-style institutions were the real future. Not only would America
have social democracy domestically, but it would join its like-minded confreres
worldwide to celebrate global governance’s emerging transcendence. What could
Fortunately, while globalista academics, their handmaidens in the political
commentariat, leftist think tanks, and non-governmental organizations were hard
at work, others, in the late ’90s, were awakening to the consequences of all
that buzz. Sometimes derided as “new sovereigntists” by the multilateralist chorus,
these analysts and practitioners began examining both the precepts and the
implications of the global-governance agenda.
Prominent among them was John Fonte, then at the American Enterprise
Institute, now at the Hudson Institute. His latest effort, Sovereignty or
Submission, has as its subtitle the sobering question: Will Americans Rule
Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? That is, indeed, the question.
Fonte warns against the “globalista” technique of international norm
setting, whereby self-selected, transnational elites fashion rules of conduct
through multilateral negotiations, which are then carried down to the
nation-state level to be rubber-stamped by pliant parliaments. This model is
actually not far from current European Union (E.U.) governance practices. U.K.
Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and David Cameron, for example, have both
estimated that approximately 50% of significant parliamentary actions involving
economic policy simply ratify, without possibility of amending or rejecting,
what E.U. bureaucrats or diplomats in Brussels
have already decided.
These are not choices by officials actually elected by real people, the only
legitimate basis for the state’s monopoly of coercive power. We are not considering
here authoritarian or less-developed countries where free expression and
representative government are absent or inadequate. One could argue in such
cases that international norm setting might provide standards or models from
which emerging free governments could pick and choose. (Of course, one could
also argue that the United States
provides a perfectly acceptable model all on its own, which emerging
democracies can emulate or not, without any need for America
to “multilateralize” its uniqueness.)
Ironically, however, the global governance advocates focus less on countries
like Iran, Cuba,
and North Korea
than on the United States.
There is a reason for this skewed focus. The United
States is the main threat to global
governance, with its antiquated attachment to its Constitution rather than to
multilateral human rights treaties and institutions. Fonte explains the
philosophical development of this antagonism toward the United States (and
others holding similar views elsewhere), and poses his own alternative, which
he labels “Philadelphian sovereignty,” in contrast to the more familiar term,
The point is more than semantic, because Fonte is not simply defending
national sovereignty in the abstract (and indeed the concept has a plethora of
sometimes contradictory definitions). Instead, he is defending how America
has developed the concept, resting on the Constitution’s opening phrase, “We
For Americans, sovereignty is not an abstract concept of international law and
politics, nor was it ever rooted in an actual “sovereign” as head of state.
Starting with the Revolution, we rejected sovereignty and legitimacy outside of
a constitutional framework of representative government. “No taxation without
representation” was one early formulation, and “We the People” the most famous
and broadly influential. Americans see themselves as personally vested with
sovereignty, an ineluctable attribute of citizenship, and they therefore react
with appropriate concern when globalistas insist that “pooled” or “shared”
sovereignty will actually benefit them. Since most Americans already believe
they have too little control over government, the notion of giving up any
authority to unfamiliar peoples and governments whose tangible interests likely
bear little relation to our own is decidedly unappealing.
Moreover, for those watching recent E.U. developments, events there are a
source ofconsiderable concern rather than admiration. Euroskeptics (or
Eurorealists, as they prefer) have repeatedly highlighted the E.U.’s
“democratic deficit,” a phrase often associated with Margaret Thatcher’s E.U.
critique. Not only are E.U. institutions and processes remote, opaque, and
unaccountable but also, as a consequence, they lack the legitimacy so fundamental
to acceptable governance. The euro’s unfolding debacle only underlines this
Fonte provides several case studies of the global-governance philosophy at
work, including international efforts to direct U.S.
domestic policy; transmogrifying the laws of war to constrain U.S.
options and practices; the International Criminal Court (ICC); isolating and
and international migration and assimilation policies. The globalista agenda is
lengthy, including major issues such as climate change, but Fonte’s examples
certainly rank among their top priorities.
In describing the intrusion of foreign actors into U.S.
domestic policy, Fonte uses a phrase of former German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer, “global domestic politics,” which neatly captures the problem. In the
globalista view, there is no room for national variation from their norms, or
tolerance for contrary majorities in different countries. This attitude
explains the ongoing efforts to homogenize E.U. member states, and the growing
tendency to second-guess what have been seen historically as entirely domestic
issues. Fonte focuses primarily on how various seemingly innocuous
international “human rights” conventions, and numerous U.N. bodies (such as the
United Nations Human Rights Council), have been used to criticize and harass
the United States
in recent years.
Fonte does considerable original thinking about how America
has assimilated immigrants, cutting through much of the current debate about
illegal immigration and how to deal with it. By stressing the longstanding
importance of Americanizing newcomers to the United
States, an approach directly contrary to the
“multicultural” view now embraced by the international Left, Fonte explains why
the globalistas are so irritated by our adherence to the Constitution and our
other basic values. The debate here is not about enforcement versus amnesty or
any of the other hot buttons, but what to do with people who are in this
country and almost certainly staying.
During the height of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
our ancestors had no hesitancy in tossing millions of new arrivals straight
into the melting pot, and no one was embarrassed by Americanization. Because
the melting pot directly forms the shared values of citizens who see themselves
as “We the People,” when assimilation is disrupted or frustrated, the unifying
bonds of citizenship are similarly weakened. These are critical issues
regardless of one’s views on the broader question of who should be let in and who
In considering traditional foreign affairs issues, the laws of war, the ICC,
and the isolation of Israel
are all excellent examples of the globalist approach. They seek to exploit both
international law and domestic U.S.
law to limit, constrain, and intimidate the United
States and its political and military
leaders from robustly defending our national interests abroad. One should begin
here with skepticism for the very idea of international law, a skepticism now
increasingly justified by a torrent of wide-ranging scholarship. Jeremy Rabkin,
John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith, Eric Posner, and many others have dealt the
globalists setback after setback, precluding even the Obama Administration from
following its basic proclivities.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the proponents of “lawfare” have used
this strategy successfully against Israel,
and increasingly against the United States.
By threatening U.S.
officials with prosecution for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses,
asserting jurisdiction over them when they travel abroad, for example, the
globalistas seek to impose their version of international law over our own
constitutional authorities. The American response should be that we recognize
no higher earthly authority than the Constitution, which no valid treaty can
supersede or diminish. And we certainly do not accept that “customary
international law” which we do not voluntarily follow can bind us, especially
today’s variety, formed not by actual custom but by leftist academics who
hardly have our best interests at heart.
John Fonte deserves our thanks and praise for wading through the morass of
globalista writings, conference papers and speeches, U.N. resolutions and
reports, and the panoply of studies written over decades while many in the United
States proceeded blithely on their way, unaware of the mounting challenges to
The struggle to preserve our constitutional system of liberty and
representative government is a great unfolding political war, and the outcome is
far from certain. Those armed with Fonte’s analysis, however, will be
well-armed and heavily armored for the battles ahead.
John R. Bolton, a former U.S. permanent representative to the United
Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Shariah law is famous for making headlines in the West over its penalties,
such as beheadings and amputations; its treatment of women and the violence
that is allowed, and its relegation to those who follow other faiths to a
Now, it seems, there’s a new move to expand its influence in the United
States, with a weekend conference in Hartford,
Conn., on “Understanding Shariah” and “how
to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same faith.”
Officials say they expect some 15,000 to attend the events at the 37th
annual ICNA convention.
“Muslims need to be educated about Shariah,” said Naeem Baig, the
organization’s vice president for public affairs, in announcing the events.
“There’s a need for the community to better understand what Shariah means to
us, and how to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same
faith,” he said.
The conflict between Shariah and Western justice, which was outlined nearly
a millennium ago in the Magna Carta and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, has
been on the rise recently.
The result has been a move among states, including Arizona,
South Dakota, Tennessee
and Kansas, to make statements
that would prevent American jurisprudence from taking a back seat to the
dictates of the Islamic religious law in American courts.
Baig called the concern “a deep-down hatred of Muslims” and said, “They
don’t want to see Muslims in America.”
ICNA said many of the convention programs focus on educating Muslims about
Shariah, and the “myths” about Shariah.
But the Stop Islamization of Nations campaign is buying ad space for a
billboard calling on Americans to learn the dark side of Islamic law.
The effort’s leader, Pamela Geller, says her group has
one real purpose – to counter the impact of the pro-Shariah billboard
campaign of the Islamic Circle of North America, an alleged Muslim Brotherhood
Geller pointed out that captured internal documents indicated ICNA is a
Muslim Brotherhood group.
“Muslim Brotherhood groups in America
are trying to … mainstream Shariah,” Geller warned.
The billboard will lead people to the Refuge from Islam site.
“The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Shariah
and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on
the face of the earth. Period,” Geller said.
“They don’t want Americans to know the truth that the gendercide of honor
killings, the clitorectomies, the stonings, and the 1,400 years of cultural
annihilations and enslavements (that) are all Shariah-mandated,” Geller said.
“We need to counter this campaign publicly. We must educate America
and arm freedom lovers with facts,” Geller said.
Geller said Muslims have to take a bold step to truly become Americans.
should be calling upon Muslim groups in America
to renounce and reject Shariah if they want to be American citizens,” Geller
It was ICNA’s Kansas City
pro-Shariah billboard that suggested the response. The Shariah promotion
says,”Shariah: Got questions? Get answers? Call 1-855-Shariah.”
Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer said the ICNA
campaign is an effort to muddy the waters on Islam.
“ICNA is trying to whitewash Shariah, to hoodwink Americans into thinking
that concerns about it are all due to ‘misconceptions’ that can easily be cleared
up,” Spencer said.
Spencer added that any inquiries about Shariah’s darker side will receive
“I expect that if any inquirers asked about stonings, amputations, the
denial of the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights
for women and non-Muslims, they’ll be told that none of that is really part of
Shariah,” Spencer said.
“ICNA’s goal is to foster complacency and ignorance about Shariah on the
part of Americans,” Spencer said.
For that book, Geert Wilders unearthed some statements revealing the
Founding Fathers’ perspective on Islam. She wrote:
“In 1916, Roosevelt observed: ‘Wherever the
Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable
to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.’
“Roosevelt rejected as ‘naïve’ the notion that ‘all
religions are the same.’ Some religions, he explained, ‘give a higher value to
each human life, and some religions and belief systems give a lower value.’”
And, she noted, “John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammad ‘poisoned the sources
of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female
sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and
exterminating war as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE
ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND
LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.’”
Explained West, “The capital letters are Adams’, by
the way, and the source Wilders draws from is ‘The American Annual Register of
1827-28-29,’ where Adams published unsigned essays in
1830 (listed in Lynn H. Parsons’ annotated bibliography of Adams’
works) in between his tenure as president and his return to Congress.”
In 2010 the people of Oklahoma
overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment banning the use of Sharia Law.
It was signed into law by their Governor. CAIR
sued the sate in Federal Court and Judge Vicky Miles LaGrange overturned
the will of the people.
The 10th district Federal Court of Appeals upheld the Lower
Court Ruling. The Kansas Governor just yesterday signed into law a similar
already promised to fight it.
Our problem in this country is, we have a Muslim in the White
House.Even if you disagree with me
about him being a Muslim, you must agree that he is a Muslim sympathizer.In either case, he is making every attempt to
subvert the US
and the west as a whole while he can.
Obama has shown evidence of a larger relationship with the DSA.
The panelists at the 1996 DSA event included Obama, then a candidate for the
13th Illinois Senate District; William Julius Wilson, a longtime DSA activist
from the Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago;
Professor Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago; and Professor Joseph
Schwartz, a member of DSA’s National Political Committee.
Obama reportedly outlined how government can play “constructive” roles in
Reported the DSA newsletter:
One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is ’what does
it take to create productive communities,’ not just consumptive communities. It
is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the
better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three
constructive roles to play.
The first is ’human capital development.’ By this he meant public education,
welfare reform, and a ‘workforce preparation strategy.’ Public education
requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to
public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current
proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also
true that the status quo is not tenable.
A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job
training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like
the ‘social wage’ approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By
‘workforce preparation strategy,’ Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated,
purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach
used by the State of Illinois
The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation
of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to
eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power
not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works
Working within Democratic Party
The DSA is a member of the Socialist International, the world’s largest
socialist group. As WND was first to report
the DSA has been closely linked to the Democratic Party, in particular to the
party’s Progressive Caucus.
Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA.
Following an expose of the link between the two organizations, the Progressive
Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress.
socialist event featuring Barack Obama
The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing goal is to work
within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in
the eyes of most Americans.
“Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work,” explains an
organizing document of the DSA. “The Democratic Party is something the public
understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our
Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture
and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals.”
Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA has never been deeply
hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song
list featuring “The Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of communism and
Another song on the site was “Red Revolution,” sung to the tune of “Red
Robin.” The lyrics went: “When the Red Revolution brings its solution along,
along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we start shootin’ that Wall Street
Another song removed after WND’s expose was “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?”
The lyrics went: “Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.
And when the revolution comes, we’ll kill you all with knives and guns,
Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for
years to Obama.
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S.
single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of
America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the
1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.
Young was reportedly present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather
Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama’s
Young has been active in Chicago
socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist
group. In 1992, Chicago’s branch of
the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their
highest honor, the Debs Award.
In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted
Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care
program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.
As an Illinois state senator
representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama
publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin
Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois
state Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for
Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March
29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of
America member Saul Mendelson.
Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of
Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama’s campaign committee
during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of “Rabbis for Obama”
and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995
that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service
Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists of
America. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina
served on Obama’s National Latino Advisory Council.
WND reported Medina,
speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C.,
conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would
expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing
coalition for the long term.
Well, I know there are SOME Communist in the Democratic
Party.The only question is “how many. Thinking about that post and
about Rep. West’s remarks prompted me to write this post.I guess you could call it a follow-up post.
On January 10, 1963, Florida US Representative Albert Sydney
Herlong, Jr gave a speech outlining what he believed to be the 45 methods
communist were using to take over America.
Just to put things in
perspective, this was a mere three months after the infamous Cuban Missile
Crises which took place in October of 1962.I remember that series of events quite well because I was serving in the
Air Force at the time, and was stationed at Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico.
Here is that list of 45 goals
that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this list, 49 years later, I think
you will be shocked by the number of them that have been accomplished.
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp.
A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON.
A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January
10, 1963 .
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De
Land, Fla., is an ardent and
articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land
Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the
dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under
unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she
identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United
States would be a demonstration of moral
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of
Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia
and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China
to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West
Germany as separate states in spite of
Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections
under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United
States has agreed to suspend tests as long
as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its
charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with
its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can
be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow.
Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia
access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic
American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission
belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum.
Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against
programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review
assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all
forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to
"eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute
shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums.
"Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them
"censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting
pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as
"normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion
with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need
for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in
the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of
church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate,
old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation
between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as
selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage
the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of
the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the
Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized
control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare
programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with
the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to
social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which
no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental
health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage
promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the
negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding
of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are
legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and
special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to
solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native
populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United
States cannot prevent the World
Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic
problems. Give the World Court
jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Now, I am not saying that the
U.S. is now under Communist control, but don’t you find it
kind of spooky that of the 45 issues listed, nearly all of them have come to
pass. Remember this was in January 1963.
The question that comes to
mind is “why and how did so many come to pass”.American's have enjoyed great prosperity over the past 40 or so years to
be sure, but we have also lost our moral compass and direction.I was very much of out of touch with what was
happening in this country for four years beginning around February of
1960.I lived in Puerto Rico for the first three of those years, and at a very isolated Air Force
base near Limestone Main for the final year.
When I returned to
“civilization” in early 1964, I could hardly believe the moral and social
decline that had occurred, and was if fact still occurring in this country.
Just to refresh your memory: There
was the “Bay of Pigs” incident, and of course The Cuban missile crisis which
I have already mentioned.
In 1963 the news media showed
women burning their bras as the women's liberation movement took off.Martin Luther King was jailed in April and
civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live
coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a
In November of 1963 President
John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.
So you see, while long since
forgotten, the early sixties could very well have been, the most important
years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States.This brings
me to one final and extremely important decision that was made during this
period.On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible
reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.
Certainly, one would have to
agree that all of these events have had a profound impact on the way our
current social structure has been changed. Personally, if I had to choose one
specific event that has demonstrated the demoralization of our country, it
would have to be the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in June of 1963.
I’m sure I don’t have to
remind anyone of the long haired, flea infested, pot smoking, war protesting
Hippies of the Viet Nam war years.The
only difference between them and the OWS protesters of today is, the OWS
protesters don’t seem to have a clue what they are protesting.Most of them are just there for the sex and
drugs and handouts.
it so important WHERE Obama was born? According
to the Constitution of the United
States, if a person was NOT born in the United
States, then BOTH parents MUST be U.S. citizens
for that person to be a “natural born citizen”.
Obama’s father was not a citizen.
That fact is not disputed, so place of birth determines if Obama is eligible
to be President. So far, the only
documents that “prove” he was born in the U.S. have been
proven to be forgeries. That is why the
following information is so important.
Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack
Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in
raised in Indonesia
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the
publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies
of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and
White—which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.
Also, I would like to add that this agency asked authors to
write their own bios. Why would he say
he was born in Kenya
if he was not?
Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead.
There also was an internal bulletin from the Kenyan National Security
Intelligence Service, or NSIS, that states that the Kenyan government in 2009
commissioned a cultural museum in the Obama home village
of Kogelo to honor the “birthplace
of President Barack Obama” and rededicate the tomb of his father, Barack Obama
The 2009 NSIS
bulletin report said:
The ministry of national heritage this month hosted a cultural festival in
Kogelo and commissioned a cultural museum on a plot donated by a member of the
Kogelo community. The cultural festival was attended by the minister for
national heritage, William ole Ntimama and U.S.
ambassador, Michael Ranneberger.
This was to honour the birthplace of President Obama and re-dedicate the
tomb of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., the president’s late father. But the project
had been delayed because of ownership wrangles surrounding the plot.
The Daily Nation, which published an artist’s sketch of the proposed Kogelo
cultural center, referred to it as Obama’s “ancestral home.”
The NSIS memo suggests the Kenyan intelligence agency kept a close watch on
the Obama family in Africa.
It noted the Kenyan government provided assistance to Obama’s
step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, in the form of additional security and a
government stipend of 50,000 Kenyan Schillings ($575) per month.
A Kenyan blog, “Jaluo,” reported
that Grandmother Sarah caused family conflict when she visited Moammar Gadhafi
in Libya “to
the surprise and chagrins of the White House in Washington,
D.C.,” and “without a proper delegation and
approval of the entire family.”
On the day after Obama’s election, MP Boni Khalwale asked fellow members,
“Could we allow … a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the
celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?”
In addition, a number of media sources – including National
Public Radio – reported Obama’s birthplace as Kenya
prior to his election as president.
reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer.
Under a Washington dateline,
Solomon Asowata wrote, “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their
next president with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely
favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff
competition from his Republican counterpart.”
An African Travel
Magazine once reported, “As Kenyan born U.S. Senator Barack Obama jets into
Kenya today as
part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security
preparations for other visitors and residents.”
article in the Sunday Standard in Kenya begins, “Kenyan-born US Senate
hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate
seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night
amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”
The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press. However, it
could not be found either in the AP archives online or the African newspaper’s
A report by Modern
Ghana posted in advance of the president’s visit stated his birthplace was
on the continent of Africa.
Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as
it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit
to the continent of his birth,” the report said.
One of the rewards of being a loyal Wall Street Journal subscriber
is that one gets to read things one might not see anywhere else. For instance,
in Wednesday's paper there was a chilling front-page scoop about the fact that it was an
American drone that had tipped off the Turkish military to a suspected caravan
of Kurdish militants near the Turkey-Iraq border last year—a caravan that
turned out to be nothing but local penny-ante smugglers carrying gasoline and
other goods, a fact that was discovered only after Turkish planes killed 34 of
the 38 of the men.
Or one might read, in the paper's opinion pages, about the “enemies
list” that Barack Obama has drawn up, to sic his allies on those who would
dare challenge him, a la Richard Nixon. What, you haven't heard about the
enemies list? Well, that's because whatever lib'rul-media outlet you
depend on has not deigned to acknowledge this monstrosity. But here is the
fearless Kimberly Strassel bringing us the word in her op-ed column:
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple
reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen,
presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to
bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a
private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation
and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his
campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief
history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and
shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the
givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on
to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also
been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the
expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the
site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin
Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis
Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas
O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank
VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe
of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless.
Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest
fraction of the position or the power of the U.S.
leader who is publicly assaulting them.
Got that? Identifying on a campaign Web site the people who are giving
to the opponent's super PAC in six and seven-figure increments is the
equivalent of Nixon's enemies list, which, as John Dean explained it at
the time, was designed to “screw” targeted individuals via “grant availability,
federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.”
OK, that seems a bit of a stretch. But Strassel has more. She reported a few days later that someone has
been doing research into one of the people identified on the campaign Web
site—Vandersloot, the CEO of the skin-care products company Melaleuca, who
has given Romney's Super PAC $1 million.
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the
Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls
in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf
wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a
case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee. Mr. Wolf sent a fax
to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He
would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with
either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a
private cellphone number.
Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk
on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them
as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall
Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs
private investigative work. The website for that company, Fusion GPS,
describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with
expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying
Oooh, now this is getting good. Good enough for the other branch of Murdochia,
Fox News, to fly into a tizzy. Someone was looking into VanderSloot's
past! Wait, that sounds kind of familiar. Is it what Nixon did with his
enemies? No, it's ... what I do as a reporter! I have no idea
what Mssrs. Wolf and Simpson are up to in Idaho,
other than looking into publicly-available court documents as anyone is
entitled to do. But I know that a few months ago, I spent several weeks trying
to learn as much as possible about some other big donors, the hedge fund
managers who have shifted their giving from the Democrats to the Republicans.
I called their rivals and ex-business partners, I called their
college professors, I may even have looked up some court records! And
I remember that there were a few people I called who asked me why
I was trying to learn about these men and their political views—wasn't it
their own business? And I remember saying something like, well, sure, everyone's
views are their personal views, but when you start cutting checks for hundreds
of thousands of dollars and giving them to super PACs, you are bringing your
personal views into the public realm in a rather significant way, and the
people who's job it is to report on this whole democracy thing of ours are
going to take a closer look at you and your views.
But that's not how the Journal editorial board sees it. It weighed
in after Strassel's columns with a thunderclap of disapproval, and a suggestion:
All of this is also a reason to reconsider rules that require the disclosure
of political donations. This sounds appealing in theory, the Supreme Court has
ruled that disclosure is Constitutional, and these columns have supported it as
part of a political compromise that would allow unlimited donations. But it's
increasingly clear that the real point of these disclosure laws is not to
inform voters but to get donor names in order to intimidate them from
participating in politics. The goal is to dispatch hired guns like Mr. Simpson
on political opponents to trash their reputations.
Democrats and their left-wing allies should understand that Republicans and Mormons
will not be the only targets. If Democrats think it is "legitimate"
to prowl and publish the divorce records of Romney donors, no one should feign
shock if some right-wing investigator is soon doing the same to Mr. Obama's
bundlers and super PAC donors. A President who claims to want
"civility" in political discourse will reap what he sows if he plays
by Nixonian rules.
I'll grant the Journal this much: it's likely that more and
more mega-donors indeed are going to seek out ways to give that are undisclosed—it
is the reason why Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group
is raising so much, because, as a group that focuses on “issues,” not
“elections,” it does not have to name its donors. But this shift is a
travesty, not a solution, and it's why anti-disclosure loopholes like the
“issues” groups need to be closed. Simply put: When you are giving on the
level that Citizens United and related rulings allow you to give, you
not only invite scrutiny, you demand it. When you are giving at levels hundreds
of times larger than the $2,500 maximum for a regular donation to a campaign,
or thousands of times larger than the size checks regular people send to
candidates, then you are setting yourself apart. And the only thing that the
rest of the citizenry has left to right the balance even slightly is to give
you some added scrutiny—to see what personal interests, biases, you name it,
might be prompting you to influence the political system in such an outsized
way. It's all we've got, really—the Internet, the phone call, the visit to the
courthouse. And yes, this applies to everyone. Why does everyone on the right
know so much about George Soros? Because they were outraged at the scale
of his giving in 2004 and 2006 and dug up everything they could on him. As is
only right and proper. And now people are going to look into Frank VanderSloot,
Harold Simmons and Paul Singer and the rest of
Romney's million-dollar club.
For more on this, see David Weigel, who got to it a day before me and, as
usual, nailed it. Also, be sure to check out the deeply-reported investigative piece by Stephanie Mencimer
in Mother Jones looking into Melaleuca and the other “multilevel
marketing” companies whose owners (often Mormon, as it happens, though not
in the case of Amway) are contributing huge amounts to Romney's campaign
and Super-PAC. It's a disconcerting piece. Or, as Strassel and the Journal
would probably have it, the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.