Obama

[Soldier4Christ]

ATF: Plot by skinheads to kill Obama is foiled
Two Neo-Nazis held in Tennessee; allegedly also planned to kill dozens

Law enforcement agents have broken up a plot by two neo-Nazi skinheads to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 88 black people, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Monday.

In court records unsealed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn., federal agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target a predominantly African-American high school in a murder spree that was to begin in Tennessee. Agents said the skinheads did not identify the school by name.

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of ATF's Nashville field office, said the two men planned to kill 88 African Americans, including 14 by beheading. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The men also sought to go on a national killing spree after the Tennessee murders, with Obama as its final target, Cavanaugh told The Associated Press.

"They said that would be their last, final act — that they would attempt to kill Sen. Obama," Cavanaugh said. "They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying."

No immediate comment
An Obama spokeswoman traveling with the senator in Pennsylvania had no immediate comment.

The men, Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark., are being held without bond. Agents seized a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested. Authorities alleged the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more.

The two men were arrested Oct. 22 by the Crockett County, Tenn., Sheriff's Office. "Once we arrested the defendants and suspected they had violated federal law, we immediately contacted federal authorities," said Crockett County Sheriff Troy Klyce.

Cowart and Schlesselman are charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, and threatening a candidate for president.

The investigation is continuing, and more charges are possible, Cavanaugh said.

The court records say Cowart and Schlesselman also bought nylon rope and ski masks to use in a robbery or home invasion to fund their spree, during which they allegedly planned to go from state to state and kill people.

Ram vehicle into Obama?
For the Obama plot, the legal documents show, Cowart and Schlesselman "planned to drive their vehicle as fast as they could toward Obama shooting at him from the windows."

"Both individuals stated they would dress in all white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt," the court complaint states. "Both individuals further stated they knew they would and were willing to die during this attempt."

Cavanaugh said there's no evidence — so far — that others were willing to assist Cowart and Schlesselman with the plot.

He said authorities took the threats very seriously.

"They seemed determined to do it," Cavanaugh said. "Even if they were just to try it, it would be a trail of tears around the South."

The court documents say the two men met about a month ago on the Internet and found common ground in their shared "white power" and "skinhead" philosophy.

14, 88 are skinhead symbols
The numbers 14 and 88 are symbols in skinhead culture, referring to a 14-word phrase attributed to an imprisoned white supremacist: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" and to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H. Two "8"s or "H"s stand for "Heil Hitler."

Helena-West Helena, on the Mississippi River in east Arkansas' Delta, is in one of the nation's poorest regions, trailing even parts of Appalachia in its standard of living. Police Chief Fred Fielder said he had never heard of Schlesselman.

However, the reported threat of attacking a school filled with black students worried Fielder. Helena-West Helena, with a population of 12,200, is 66 percent black. "Predominantly black school, take your pick," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hushing Rush and Hannity sounds great to Obama fans
Support for 'Fairness Doctrine' rises as impact on talk radio raised

Supporters of Barack Obama like the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" that would crack down on talk shows like those of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and their enthusiasm grows when the idea of taking the radio icons off the air is introduced.

According to a new ATI-News/Zogby poll, Obama backers are at odds even with independents and undecided voters on the issue of clamping down on free speech on the airwaves.

"Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign," said ATI-News president Brad O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

The new survey talked with 1,203 likely voters nationwide from Oct. 23-26 and has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.

Those likely to vote for Obama supported reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" by a margin of 49 percent to 36 percent, and Democrats support it 47 to 38 percent. Independents marginally support the Fairness Doctrine 42 percent to 40 percent, though this is within the poll’s 2.9 percent margin of error. The remaining respondents all replied "not sure."

But then the poll asked, "Some say the Fairness Doctrine could result in popular radio shows, such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, to be taken off the air in some markets. Knowing this, do you support or oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?"

The results then revealed those who say they will vote for Obama support reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" 53 percent to 37 percent, with 10 percent not sure. That's while independent voters opposed the doctrine 49 to 40 percent and undecided voters rejected it 50 to 17 percent.

"When informed that the Fairness Doctrine might take Limbaugh and Hannity off the air, the percentage of Democrat likely voters who support the Fairness Doctrine rose to 53 percent," according to O'Leary. "However, the percentage of independents opposed to the Fairness Doctrine rose."

The doctrine was instituted in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission and soon was recognized as a tool for silencing views authorities found objectionable. The FCC repealed the rule in 1987 after admitting the plan "had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

According to O'Leary, the results show Obama and the Democrats would rather silence their detractors through oppressive regulation than compete on an even playing field.

He said several situations already have given evidence of that:

    * When Chicago radio station WGN scheduled journalist Stanley Kurtz to talk about Obama's ties to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign recruited 100,000 supporters to act in a cult-like manner and besiege the station with protests.

    * When "Joe the Plumber" questioned Obama about his plan to raise taxes on small businesses, Obama supporters sought to destroy Joe and publicly embarrass him by digging through his tax files, work history and personal life.

    * Obama forces also tried to hush a national organization that ran TV and radio ads attacking the candidate's position on an issue. In that instance, Obama's general counsel fired off a letter threatening the licenses of stations that didn't pull the ad "for the sake of FCC licensing and the public interest."

    * After seeing a dip in the polls in September, the Obama campaign dispatched prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Missouri to act as so-called "truth squads" to target anyone who runs ads on TV or radio critical of Obama.

"There is nothing 'fair' about the Fairness Doctrine, and re-establishing the doctrine would have the chilling effect of silencing America's 2,000 talk radio show hosts that discuss politics," warned O'Leary.

He said if Democrats achieve supermajorities in both houses of Congress and Obama is installed in the White House, "freedom-of-speech will be purged from our nation's airwaves,"

O'Leary, whose newest book, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," reveals what could be expected in an Obama presidency, is president of ATI-News and is the former president of the American Association of Political Consultants.

In a commentary about the results of the poll, O'Leary wrote that Bill Ruder, who was President Kennedy's assistant secretary of commerce, said, "We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine' to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

Obama, according to his spokesman, believes in opening the airwaves "to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." He also supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality and more minority owners of broadcast outlets.

"While the television and newspaper industries are dominated by left-wing bias, talk radio has been the only voice for Americans to hear the other side of the story, and with overwhelming success. Today 100 million people in 50 million households tune into news and talk radio each week. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine and re-establishing the doctrine would have the chilling effect of silencing America’s 2,000 talk radio show hosts that discuss politics," O'Leary wrote.

WND recently reported when the Colorado Springs-based family organization Focus on the Family Action published a hypothetical letter from a Christian in the 2012.

Titled "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America," the piece clearly targets the many evangelical Christians seeking "change," particularly the young, who could tip the election in favor of the Illinois Democrat. At the end of the letter, the fictional Christian laments that these people "simply did not realize Obama's far-left agenda would take away many of our freedoms as a nation, perhaps permanently," pointing to a new, liberal-majority Supreme Court unlikely to change for 30 more years.

"I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," says the fictional writer. "Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years," America is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more," the letter writer says.

Focus on the Family Action, established as a separate legal entity from Focus on the Family, has expanded abilities under the IRS code to lobby for political change.

Among the possible developments by 2012:

    * Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.

    * Elementary schools have compulsory training in varieties of gender identity. Courts rule parents cannot opt out their children, because the training is deemed essential to psychological health.

    * Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.

    * Church buildings are now considered a "public accommodation" by the United States Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.

    * Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as he promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, nullifying hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.

The letter also envisions the restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a result, "nearly all conservative stations have now gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010."

[Soldier4Christ]

Will black voters
be powder keg?
'Kerosene' Maxine Waters demands
FBI probe of unconfirmed reports

The Obama campaign is accusing Republicans of trying to disenfranchise black voters in Detroit and other cities by using home foreclosure lists to turn them away from polls on Election Day.

The charges were initially raised by Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of the Congressional Black Caucus, prompting Obama and the Democratic National Committee to sue the Michigan GOP.

The federal suit, which campaign lawyers acknowledge is based solely on unconfirmed reports and rumors, also alleges that Ohio Republicans and the Republican National Committee also have schemed to challenge voters who have lost their homes in the battleground state.

Republican officials in both states denied the allegations.

"We're not going to do that," said Michigan Republican Party spokesman Bill Nowling, "and we never talked about doing that."

Last month, Waters, D-Watts – who fanned the flames of the deadly Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, earning her the nickname "Kerosene Maxine" – demanded the FBI investigate the rumors.

"I'm taking the opportunity to sound the alarm so that we are not talking about it after the election and investigating (then)," Waters told FBI Director Robert Mueller in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "This can be stopped now."

Convinced an actual conspiracy is under way, Waters said, "It's a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and we shouldn't linger with this.

"We've got an election coming up," she added. "And we don't want to see these challenges based on foreclosures, okay?"

Waters helped fuel the 1992 riots in her South Central district of Los Angeles by shouting, "No justice, no peace," along with the rioters, whose murderous behavior she said she found "somewhat understandable."

"I'm just as angry as they are," she said at the time.

James Carville and other Democrat activists have already hinted at similar riots breaking out in heavily black cities in the event Obama, the first African-American presidential nominee, loses the election.

Senior NAACP official Hilary Shelton said blacks would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.

"On Election Day," she said, "you may have some tempers flare."

While Shelton said police should prepare to control crowds, she warned against too big a police presence near polls, which she said could intimidate first-time minority voters.

In anticipation of possible unrest, police in Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia are beefing up their ranks for Election Day. Police based the need for enhanced patrols in part on the Internet rumors alleging disenfranchisement.

Obama's campaign also has gone to federal court asking for restraining orders to keep Republicans from allegedly using foreclosure lists to disqualify voters in Michigan and elsewhere.

The mainstream media have bruited about the rumors, which started on a leftwing blog in Michigan.

"Lost your house to foreclosure?" a CNN report asked. "Democrats in Michigan say beware: Republicans want to make sure you lose your vote, too."

Rehashing unconfirmed reports, CNN suggested Republicans are arming election officials with lists of foreclosed homes to make sure "people kicked out of their homes" aren't voting from those addresses.

"Democrats fear Republicans on Election Day will challenge voters whose addresses don't match where they live now – like people who had been kicked out of their homes due to foreclosure," CNN said.

The network then showed a map of more than 5,000 dots denoting foreclosed homes in one Detroit county alone, noting that Democrats believe they are all likely Obama voters.

But election officials there say registered voters who left their foreclosed home for a different address in the same precinct are still eligible to vote. And officials deny the distribution of any foreclosure lists.

A voter registration group tied to Obama is under investigation by the FBI and election agencies in several states. ACORN, an inner-city charity, is accused of fraudulently registering tens of thousands of voters in states where no ID is required.

Slightly more than half of states (see table below) do not require voters to show a drivers license or other proof of residence to vote. Fully 26 states do not ask for documentation to match names or signatures to voter registration cards.

NO ID? NO PROBLEM

States where ID is not required to vote

California
District of Columbia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

[HisDaughter]

Obama's Iraq plan: A Vietnam flashback
By ABRAHAM KATSMAN

A JPost.com exclusive blog

An Iraqi army soldier is seen with seized weapons, at an Iraqi army base in the Amariyah neighborhood, western Baghdad, Iraq, on Monday. The weapons were seized by the Iraqi army during recent house to house search operations in Amariyah.

You wouldn't know it from following the major news outlets. And you certainly wouldn't know it from listening to the campaign speeches of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the United States military and coalition forces have been on a roll in Iraq. Just last week, yet another province was secure enough to be turned over to the surprisingly effective new Iraqi security forces. That news seemed to get lost amidst the superbly thorough news coverage of Sarah Plain's new wardrobe.

So, for those of you who read The New York Times, here is a brief summary of where we are in Iraq: as a direct result of the 2007 "surge"-so vocally advocated by John McCain, and so vocally opposed by Obama, Biden and the Democrat leadership-huge sections of Iraq are now stable, peaceful and free.

According to Pentagon sources, al-Qaeda is on the run and the war has effectively come to an end in 14 of 18 provinces. Oil is flowing, and society is rebuilding. These successes occurred at roughly the same rate that Iraq stories disappeared from the front pages of the Times. In September, US combat deaths for all of Iraq were six-about the same as an average weekend in Chicago.

But, as coalition Commander General David Petraeus-surge architect and expert on counter-insurgency-constantly warns, these gains are fragile and not irreversible. He does not use the word "victory" to describe where we stand: "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade."

In other words, don't leave too quickly, or it can all fall apart. But if Obama and Biden have their way, we'll pull up the flag and go home-in defeat, squandering our huge gains. Even now, they only grudgingly, belatedly credit the surge for any success-as recently as July, Obama said he still wouldn't support it, even in hindsight. They are still wedded to the same withdrawal schedule Obama advocated before the surge, when he stated:

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

For Obama, a man with zero military background or foreign policy experience, to stubbornly maintain the same defeatist policy in the face of resounding military success and the assessment of General Petraeus requires a noxious blend of arrogance and hubris. Exercising terrible judgment and too proud to acknowledge compelling contrary evidence does not bode well for the kind of leadership we might expect from Obama.

Obama and Biden still regularly denigrate our achievement in Iraq, ignoring the implications of their campaign applause lines calling for an end-not a win-to the war. And it's not just Obama and Biden, but the entire Democrat congressional leadership that refers the war as "lost," and advocates leaving ASAP. Whether this policy is clouded by political calculation, pacifist mindset or animus towards President Bush, it is oblivious to the reality of the situation on the ground.

The benefit for the entire region of maintaining a stable, free, democratic, American-allied Iraq is immeasurable. But if we pull the plug too soon, as Obama and Biden continue to advocate, Iraq will be doomed to bloody chaos. Al-Qaeda and the Islamists throughout the region-especially neighboring, genocidal Iran- will win a huge victory (not to mention huge oil reserves). American credibility-both as a military force and as an ally in time of need-will evaporate.

Unfortunately, we've been in an eerily similar situation before: the aftermath of Vietnam-and the results weren't pretty. Like Saigon, our allies in Baghdad cannot yet survive without us.

Some quick history: Finally concluding that they could not defeat the American-backed Republic of South Vietnam, the communist North Vietnam signed the Paris Agreement in January, 1973, which called for cessation of attacks by the North and recognition of Saigon's fragile democratic government. America withdrew its troops, but continued air support and arms to the anticommunist, increasingly stable South Vietnamese, as well as to its neighboring anticommunist Republic of Cambodia.

But a hated President Nixon resigned in scandal, and his obsessive, personally vindictive critics then elected to Congress in 1974 could not bear to support his arguably significant foreign policy success in a war they had vehemently opposed. Within months, Congressional Democrats proceeded to kick the legs out from under the South Vietnamese, withdrawing all American personnel, and cutting off all aid and arms - leaving all of Indochina to the tender mercies of the communist forces.

Now with a free hand, the North invaded, communist style. They killed over one million South Vietnamese. Two million fled. Anyone who had been associated with the US or the Saigon government was targeted. Millions were forced into "re-eduction" camps. Hundreds of thousands of "boat people" climbed aboard anything that would float and escaped to sea with no idea where they'd end up-usually in the hands of pirates and the mouths of sharks.

Communist forces were now also undeterred from conquering American-allied Cambodia. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge-Marxists with a curiously al-Qaeda-esque zealotry for social reconstruction, expelled half the population from their homes, engaged in systematic torture, starvation and forced labor, destroyed every book they found, forbade married people from speaking for extended periods of time and forbade sexual relations entirely, and conducted public mass executions-often killing entire families at once. Death toll: nearly 2 million-almost 1/3 of the entire country-butchered in the "killing fields." (Reliably, The New York Times reflected the voice of the Democrats, arguing that the Khmer Rouge would be moderate-as would other local communist forces-once the Americans would leave.)

Who were those Democrats responsible for such a policy? Could such people be trusted to handle a post-Bush Iraq? Are people with that blood on their consciences still in power? Well, here's a hint: one went on to vote against the first Gulf War, got caught in a plagiarizing scandal, opposed the Alaska pipeline and opposed the aforementioned successful "surge." Yep, the man now providing foreign policy experience, judgment and "gravitas" to the Obama candidacy: a young anti-war Senator named Joe Biden.

Early in the war, critics constantly compared Iraq to Vietnam. With Obama and Biden in charge, that may turn out to be an apt comparison.

The writer is Counsel to Republicans Abroad Israel

[Shammu]

China Expert Hayward Warns Against Obama's 'Socialist' Plan For America
Bonnie King Salem-News.com
Oct-27-2008

An interview with Al Hayward, 25-year China expert, who says his opinions about Obama won't be popular but promises of less work - more money have failed before.

Al Hayward, a 25-year Chinese trade expert, says “you can drown by tipping the canoe too far in either direction”, and he is worried that what he calls Barack Obama’s “socialistic promises” are tipping this country too far toward communism.

“What bothers me very much is the fact that Obama’s campaign is based on ‘do less, work less, get more’, and the reality of this is it doesn’t work that way,” Hayward said.

Al Hayward has lived, worked, and done business in mainland China and other communist countries for decades, and he is currently working on a 20 billion dollar “City of Tomorrow” project near Macau.

This weekend as he and the woman he married nearly 20 years ago, Wang Hui, strolled through the streets of Portland’s China town, Al Hayward shared his views with us on the "wrong direction" he sees the U.S. moving in.

“I’ve lived under 15 presidents and voted for 8,” Hayward said. “During the great depression the slogan was, ‘An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work’, I haven’t heard that in this country for 50 years. We’ve been given promises, ‘Elect me and you get more and do less,’ ‘Work less hours and get more pay’. It doesn’t work that way. If you want more, the way I was taught, the way we taught our children, you want more, work more.”

"China's great economy boom, as exhibited during the '08 Olympics and hundreds of billions in trade surpluses came about when she adopted American capitalist policies of, “work more-get more” and became a world industrial powerhouse."

"I fear that under Obama's plan, America is in great danger of becoming more Communist than Red China is today if in fact it hasn't already happened."

Hayward was born and raised in China. Now as an American citizen, she says she wishes more people would appreciate the opportunities the U.S. affords them.

Wang Hui said, “The biggest problem I see happening over here is a lot of people take advantage of this good life here. A lot of particularly young people that can work don’t want to work, so they use the system and get free this, free that, a lot of free things, and in China you definitely can not do that.”

Al Hayward says "share and share alike" isn't the answer. "It didn't work in Russia. It didn't work in Eastern Europe. It didn't work in Mainland China. And it won't work in America," Hayward said. "Communism rewards only those people in government, and forces the rest to share their pay with those that did less and too often nothing. 'They pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work. And we all suffered,' a man told me, who once lived under Communist control in Eastern Europe."

"Obama scares me. Too many it seems are buying his 'more money for less work for all' campaign. The same propaganda lies used by the Communists and Adolf Hitler to take over nations and control of their people."

Al Hayward has been around the world and back again. He found a metaphor for life in a chilling experience he had on Mt Everest, where he says he came to a crossroads and made the right choice.

“I had a film opportunity,” Hayward recalls, “and was doing a film on Mt Everest when I lost my climbing partner; and so, he got in trouble and I took over my backpack from the Sherpa guide, and then I came on back off of Mt Everest alone. Crossed one glacier without ropes, that was a little scary.”

“I came down to a fork in the trail, one of them led to China, and one led back to the American base camp. China owns probably half of Mt Everest. They call it Kuma lama (Zhūmùlǎngmǎ Fēng), and so I had a decision: either to go on to ‘communist China’ or come back to the American camp. And fortunately, I guessed right, and came back to the American camp.”

“But I see America in this coming election at the same crossroads. They’ve got to decide: do we continue to go down this slippery slope, more socialism, more welfare, less work, more pay, promises that can’t be kept? Or, do we buckle down and just work more and get more? That’s what will bring us back, that’s in essence why I’m here today and why I felt strongly that it was time to stand up and say something regardless of the personal consequences.”

The crossroads are being faced by each individual voter, and Al Hayward says he hopes to prevent Americans from taking a trail toward socialism, and what he calls, a road to revolution.

China Expert Hayward Warns Against Obama's 'Socialist' Plan For America

[Shammu]

Protesters rail against Obama’s ‘socialism’
October 27, 2008

Christopher Ortiz,
The Protesters waving signs along College Avenue before Barrack Obama speak had more in common than just their opposition of the senator. Nearly half of them were foreign born.

Countries like Romania, Holland, Germany and the Netherlands were represented in the group who said Obama will bring a socialist agenda that mirrors the agenda of European countries.

Martin Boonstoppel, 47, and Juul Dijkstra, both of the Netherlands, said they wanted to protest what they saw as an unfair tax policy supported by Obama.

"I lived under socialism and we were taxed huge amounts and it was going to people who did not work," said Dijkstra, who moved to the United States in 2003. "That is part of the reason I fled home."

Boonstoppel said he was taxed up to 52 percent and did want to see the same happen here under an Obama administration.

In recent weeks, opponents of Obama have tried to paint his tax policies as bordering on socialism.

Gina Bagbey of Fort Collins said she came out to show support for the Republican ticket, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

But Bagbey said she worries Obama will bring a socialist agenda to the White House.

"I don't like the tax the rich and give to the poor," she said. "Obama reminds me Karl Marx."

Protesters said they were surprised in the level of support they got from drivers who honked as they drove past.

"I was really worried because Fort Collins is more liberal," Bagbey said.

Kaylin Brewer, 18, of Fort Collins, said she supports McCain and worries about the growth of government if the Democratic control not only both houses in Congress but also the White House.

"The government is just going to get more and more control," Brewer said.

After the speech, Larry Bruns stood on the corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue waving a sign reading "No clue, Nobama," and had a picture of Obama with Mickey Mouse ears.

As Obama supporters cleared out from the speech, some had a few choice words for Bruns.

Protesters rail against Obama’s ‘socialism’

[Shammu]

This Halloween, I will be practicing a fair redistribution of candy with trick-or-treaters that come to my house. We're just trying to spread the wealth around a little.

1. Trick-or-treaters who have under 50 pieces of candy in their bag will receive 10 pieces.
2. Trick-or-treaters who have between 50 and 100 pieces will receive 5 pieces of candy.
3. Trick-or-treaters who have between 100 and 150 will receive nothing and I will probably take candy away from you next year, but I want your support now so I'm not going to mention that.
4. If you have over 150 pieces, I will take away half of your candy and require you to provide candy to all of your friends that have under 50 pieces. If you do not give your friends candy, then I will take away the rest of your candy and give it to them myself.
5. If you have no candy at all, I'll give you 25 pieces of candy and a college scholarship.

Your loving neighbor,

Mr. Barack

[Shammu]

Obama's Pentagon
by Robert Maginnis
Posted 10/27/2008 ET

If Barack Obama becomes president, his defense agenda and team will cut defense spending, rely on international organizations for our security and push for radical social change.  His Pentagon appointees will come from liberal think tanks, Ivy League schools and the Clinton administration. 

Most new presidents come to office with big plans but when their appointees collide with the Pentagon’s bureaucrats and the realities of war, those plans often crumble.  The same will be true for Obama.  The professionals at the Pentagon focus on war not political posturing. 

And geopolitics such as Russia’s invasion of Georgia can overtake election strategies as well.  Ask President Bush about the impact 9/11 had on his promise to “transform” the Pentagon. 

Senator Obama’s security agenda includes little that is new.  He promises to end the Iraq war but President Bush may preempt that promise by signing a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that transitions America out of Iraq by 2011.  Geopolitics and logistical realities make an earlier withdrawal foolhardy. 

While Obama and Bush agree that Afghanistan must become the focal point of the global war on terror, Bush has already announced troop increases for Afghanistan beginning next year.

Senator Obama promises to refocus military capabilities on stability and counterinsurgency but that’s already a Pentagon priority outlined in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.  The junior senator from Illinois promises to build partnerships abroad but that too is a top Bush priority and his Pentagon is already transforming America’s security cooperation efforts.

What concerns many observers are Obama’s spending priorities.  He has promised to “cut tens of billions” in “wasteful spending” and “investments in unproven missile defense systems.”  It’s not clear, however, whether he intends to replace the military’s critical war ravaged equipment.   

Obama is being pressured to make deep defense cuts.  House liberals and Obama constituencies like the Black Leadership Forum have argued that cutting defense programs “… would free up $1 trillion in the federal budget.”  Cutting such programs will be difficult, however, because the defense budget is the most politically contentious in the federal government.

Richard Danzig, a former Clinton navy secretary and chief Obama defense advisor, expects Pentagon spending under an Obama administration to remain at current levels.  However, Danzig promises “… to come to grips with affordability issues and the requirements process” which should be a red flag for new acquisition programs like the Army’s $160 billion-plus Future Combat Systems, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which already faces significant cost overruns and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer.

Obama plays to his liberal constituencies when he pledges to do away with nuclear weapons without Russia, China and others also doing away with theirs. Promises to radically reduce the nuclear threat, while nothing new are nearly impossible to accomplish. 

The primary policies Obama might change are Clinton-era social experiments.  Obama and a democratic controlled Congress will push to dump the military’s homosexual exclusion policy and force more women into direct combat.  No military necessity exists for either change but Obama’s liberal constituency demands nothing less.

Obama’s team overseeing his Pentagon agenda will be a predictable cast of new and old characters with at least one surprise.  Likely sitting behind the defense secretary’s desk on the Pentagon’s E-ring will be a member of Obama’s “unity ticket,” retiring Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.  Allegedly, Obama will tap Hagel for the job as part of a “high profile” team that will “command public confidence.” 

Hagel is a Republican in name only. He has often taken positions that rankle fellow Republicans.  The Vietnam veteran agrees with Obama on many defense issues.  He’s an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, favors direct talks with rogue nations like Iran and Syria and disparages the so-called Jewish lobby.  Like fellow Republican (and former MaineSenator) William “Bill” Cohen who served President Clinton as secretary of defense, the addition of Republican Hagel fits Obama’s “change” agenda and his promise to tackle Washington’s “partisan gridlock.”

Richard Danzig, a back-up candidate to Hagel for the top job, is most likely Obama’s choice for deputy secretary of defense.  Danzig, a Yale lawyer and Rhodes Scholar who served in the Pentagon under both Presidents Carter and Clinton, will be Obama’s chief ideologue to keep the Pentagon on a liberal course.  Recently, Danzig outlined the “Obama doctrine” which includes three guiding principles: “The US can’t do everything by itself; the US must get its allies to assume the burden militarily; and international security problems require the US to use non-military assets.”  This sounds like the failed Clinton principles that resulted in “Black Hawk Down,” the USS Cole, Khobar Towers and the Kosovo bombing fiasco.

The Pentagon has approximately 250 political appointee positions.  Most of those positions will likely be filled with know-nothing-about-national-defense youthful campaign workers, a move typical of new administrations pressed to find jobs to reward party loyalty but many will never get security clearances required for their jobs.  Basically, it means political appointees below the third tier level will require a lot of on-the-job-training and handholding by seasoned bureaucrats and uniformed members. 

The Democrat Party has plenty of loyalists with defense credentials ready to join the Obama Pentagon.  Some, like Harvard professor and Obama national security advisor Sarah Sewall, are very credible.  Sewall served in the Clinton Pentagon as a deputy assistant secretary of defense and recently collaborated with General David Petraeus to rewrite the military’s counterinsurgency field guide.  But she will push the Pentagon toward more nation-building projects.

Members of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal advocacy group headed by Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, could play a prominent role in an Obama Pentagon.  Obama might rehire CAP staffer Rudy deLeon, a former Clinton under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, to advance liberal social issues.  DeLeon was Clinton’s front man for homosexuals in the military and he pushed for women in more combat roles.  Other CAP staffers that might join Obama’s Pentagon team include Denis McDonough, who wants to combat climate change, and James Ludes, a former defense adviser to Senator John Kerry who rightly sees the current financial crisis as a national security problem.

Obama will dip into liberal think tanks like Washington’s Brookings Institution for Pentagon staffers.  Philip Gordon and Ivo Daalder are among 83 scholars identified as foreign policy experts at Brookings’ website.  Both men worked in the Clinton administration and now serve as Obama campaign advisors.  Daalder wants the US to unilaterally reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal to 1,000 warheads and Gordon wishfully declares the war on terror will end once Muslims turn against extremists.

Obama’s campaign has tapped many retired military advisors but most of these former soldiers won’t be front and center at the Pentagon.  Retired Air Force Major General Jonathan Gration, a former combat fighter pilot and campaign adviser, is the exception and could land a policy position in Obama’s Pentagon.  Gration is the son of missionary parents who were in the Congo where he learned Swahili.  After retirement, he translated his Africa experience into the Millennium Development, a non-profit organization that aims to lift African villages out of poverty, an issue that Obama appears to favor. 

Predictably, an Obama Pentagon will be run by liberal national security experts who will put the Pentagon on a crash diet and refocus security priorities on other than combat missions.  And soldiers will pay in blood for their liberal agenda.

Obama's Pentagon

[Shammu]

Broadcast Morning Shows Bury Obama Redistributionist Radio

By Mark Finkelstein
Created 2008-10-27 08:33

Imagine that a week before a presidential election, a radio interview surfaced in which the Republican candidate had called for, say, the abolition of Social Security. Now imagine the broadcast networks' reaction to that nugget: "We interrupt regularly-scheduled programming for this Breaking News," followed by 24/7 coverage with talking heads pondering the devastating impact on America's seniors, the overall economy, the future of Western civilization, etc. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman would be booked from now till election day, offering his pained pronouncements.

But how do those same networks react when a radio interview [YouTube after the jump] surfaces of Barack Obama in a call for the redistribution of wealth, in which he laments the Supreme Court's insufficient radicalism in pursuing redistribution and refers to the civil rights movement's failure to develop a better strategy to bring about wealth redistribution as a "tragedy?

Insert cricket-chirp soundtrack here.............

When, awakening, I saw the story up on Drudge, I made it a point to monitor the crucial first half-hour of Today, Good Morning America, and the Early Show, to see how much coverage they devoted to the radio interview. Results:

Today Show: zilch
Good Morning America: zip
The Early Show: nada

What makes you madder: the networks' burying of the story, or the fact that their deep-sixing of it was so predictable?

Note: While I was off watching the broadcast networks, my NB colleage P. J. Gladnick, who was on this story early, and has also detailed the Kossacks panicky reaction to it, noted that Morning Joe, on cable-network MSNBC, did get into a discussion of the issue during its second hour. We'll update later with details.

Update: Mika Suggests Obama Using 'Marxist Dialect'

If NBC, along with the other broadcast networks, was too timid to broach the radio interview, over on MSNBC Morning Joe was not. Mika Brzezinski went so far as to suggest to Obama surrogate Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) that Obama's redistributionist rap amounted to "Marxist dialect." McCaskill claimed that all Obama was talking about was changes to the tax code. Either she hadn't read the radio transcript or she was, let's say, fibbing. In the interview, Obama advocated nothing less than a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution.


PS: we wish Mika well in her debate/discussion this evening at Fairfield University with Monica Crowley. Contrary to a newspaper repor

• t that she would "represent" Obama, a university official has contacted me to state that while Mika "in general, she holds a liberal political view," she will not be representing any candidate but will instead share her "wisdom, experience and impartiality."

Note —Not Income Redistribution, Wealth Redistribution: Be Very Afraid

My first edition of this item spoke of Obama's support for redistribution of income. But then I saw a reader speak of redistribution of "wealth." I went back and checked, and sure enough, that's what Obama said in the radio interview. And now that I think of it, of course he also told Joe the Plumber he wants to "spread the wealth" around.

As bad as income redistribution is, it pales in comparison to wealth redistribution. Income is what people earn. Income redistribution comes about through steeply progressive income taxes. Wealth is what people accumulate over the course of a lifetime of earning. Wealth redistribution implies nothing less than government confiscation of the nest eggs people have labored all their lives to build up. Be very afraid.

And don't think it can't happen. After all, Barack "Citizen of the World" Obama looks to Europe for inspiration. A number of European countries have a "wealth tax" in which people are required to annually pay a percentage of their net worth--on accumulated wealth that was of course already taxed at the time it was earned. Extra credit to France for its socialistic name for the levy: the "solidarity tax" on wealth. Vive la revolution!

Excerpt from transcript of Obama's 2001 interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Broadcast Morning Shows Bury Obama Redistributionist Radio Rap

[Shammu]

Obama Playing by Chicago Rules
By DAVID FREDDOSO
August 20, 2008; Page A19

Democrats don't like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.

By clearing out the incumbent and the others in his first Democratic primary for state Senate, Mr. Obama did something that was neither illegal nor even uncommon. But Mr. Obama claims to represent something different from old-style politics -- especially old-style Chicago politics. And the senator is embarrassed enough by what he did that he misrepresents it in the prologue of his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

In that book, Mr. Obama paints a portrait of himself as a genuine reformer and change agent, just as he has in this presidential campaign. He attributes his 1996 victory to his message of hope, and his exhortations that Chicagoans drop their justifiable cynicism about politics.

When voters complained of all the broken promises politicians had made in the past, Mr. Obama writes that he "would usually smile and nod, and say that I understood the skepticism, but that there was -- and always had been -- another tradition to politics, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done."

Mr. Obama writes that even if the voters were not impressed by this speech, "enough of them appreciated my earnestness and youthful swagger that I made it to the Illinois legislature."

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama's petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents' signatures on various technical grounds -- all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that "(s)ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don't live in the 13th district."

One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.

In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

But Mr. Obama's offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn't have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.

The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.

In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.

The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.

When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.

After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."

Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).

Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem.

Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.

Obama Playing by Chicago Rules

[Shammu]

That’s not winning at all. This just gives an indicator of what Obama is capable of.

The thing that struck me, is "petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents" This demonstrates that he is the primary coordinator. This fact, just solidifies to me, his slimy involvement with Acorn, another process that involves Voters signatures.

[Shammu]

L.A. Times Suppresses Damaging Obama Videotape

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:51 PM
By: Jim Meyers

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape showing Barack Obama attending an event in Chicago honoring a Palestinian activist who formerly served as a spokesman for Yasser Arafat.

The 2003 event was a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, who was leaving the University of Chicago to take a position at Columbia University in New York.

Obama, then an Illinois state senator, lavished praise on Khalidi at the party, which was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network. So did unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, contributing editor at National Review, who disclosed Khalidi’s link to “master terrorist” Arafat.

Back in April, Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the party and disclosed: “The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”

But as the Boston Herald noted about the videotape, “The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it.”

McCarthy observed: “Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that The Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?”

Khalidi himself spoke at the event, praising Obama and telling the crowd that he deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” he said.

In the 1970s, Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, Lebanon, and often spoke on behalf of Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization.

In 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. And in 2000, Khalidi and his wife held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid.

The following year, a social service organization whose board was headed by Khalidi’s wife received a $40,000 grant from a local charity that included Obama among its board of directors, the Times reported in April.

The Times disclosed: “At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, one young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’

“One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology.’”

Regarding anti-Israeli rhetoric, McCarthy wrote that Obama “wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so stanchly supports, would he?

“I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.”

L.A. Times Suppresses Damaging Obama Videotape

[Soldier4Christ]

The following is from a fellow Navy Veteran:

After spending nine years in Navy Intelligence as … After spending nine years in Navy Intelligence as a Cryptologist, intercepting communications from Marxist/Socialist countries, breaking their codes, and gathering intelligence in “other” ways. I am familiar with their methods of using the media for propangada, using the educational system to indoctrinate young minds, using the judicial system, and voter fraud to steal elections. This is what is happening now in america. From everything I have researched in the last two years, has lead me to conclude that Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, scripted, and financed by Radical Marxist/Socialists to become the puppet leader of the USSA. There is a vast difference between Social Democrats and Radical Marxist/Socialists. Hillary Clinton is a Social Democrat. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, Durbin, Franks, Boxer, and a few others now in Congress are Radical Marxist/Socialists.

On my website: [valsword.spaces.live.com] I have a 16 minute video of an interview with Yure Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1970. This interview was recorded 24 years ago, and the transcript highlights, in Yuri’s own words confirm what I mentioned in the first paragraph. I pray that I am wrong, but from everything I have researched, I believe Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system will pull a Hugo Chavez.

In a recent address to his subjects, carried by fiat on all of the nation’s television channels, Venezuela’s authoritarian president Hugo Chávez Frias, who has previously taken over the airways for the celebration of his own birthday, now turned his country’s attention to more urgent matters. The time had come, he explained, to move the “Bolivarian revolution” from its Lenin-like beginnings of transitional capitalism towards a more robust command economy. The nation had at last “broken the chains of the old, exploitative capitalist system,” he said. “The state now has the obligation to build the model of a socialist economy.”

The next stage of the socialist revolution will require making thirty-three separate amendments to the Venezuelan constitution—a document Chávez previously rewrote upon his ascension to Miraflores Palace in 1999. The most dramatic and controversial change will eliminate presidential term limits, ensuring the fulfillment of Chavez’s promise not to leave office until 2021. To Hugo Chávez, a permanent revolution requires that he wield permanent power. It’s a risky move, considering recent opinion polls showing a majority of Venezuelans skeptical to further constitutional “reform,” especially if it means the possibility of adopting a President Chávez for life. But the same public, polling data demonstrates, also opposed the government’s refusal to renew a broadcast license for RCTV, the country’s oldest and most anti-Chávez private television network, and that storm seems to have passed.

_____________

This is the exact same thing that I have been saying. Stop and think a minute and go back over the words of Obama that has been getting more and more publication in the recent year. He continues to talk of "spreading the wealth", he has called the Constitution a "fundamentally flawed document," there is continual proof of strong associations (both work related and friends) that want this sort of thing to happen to the U.S., his "slip of the tongue" in a hintful manner about him being in office for 14 yrs and the list can go on much longer.

If Obama is elected I am expecting the very rapid death of the U.S.

[Shammu]

If Obama is elected I am expecting the very rapid death of the U.S.

You and me both brother. Though I think their are quite a few of us, that feel this way.

[Soldier4Christ]

Yes, there are quite a few. The following video is one that I think that all should see.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/ATLAHWorldwide/videos/27/755.078/