New Right Thinking Web Poll

Here are the results of the last Right Thinking web poll. The question was "Do the Barack Obama relationships with people such as William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mike Klonsky, Jeremiah Wright, and others who have expressed anti-American sentiments or who have performed acts of terror against the United States have any relevance to his quest to become President of the United States?"

The results are as follows:

No, those relationships have no relevance at all. (8) 27%
Yes, those relationships make him more qualified to be President. (0) 0%
Yes, those relationships make him less qualified to be President. (1) 3%
Yes, those relationships should eliminate him from consideration for President (21) 70%

Make sure to vote in our new poll which asks your opinion on the effect of Wednesday night's 30 minute Obama campaign ad.

The Los Angeles Times' Obama, Khalidi, and perhaps Ayers, too, Video Controversy

By now most of you have heard that the Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape of Barack Obama praising Rashid Khalidi, a director in Beirut, from 1976 to 1982, of the official PLO press agency WAFA. However, I think most people are missing the most important aspects of this issue. So here are my thoughts.

We don't need this video to know that Barack Obama has a close relationship to Rashid Khalidi; we already know that to be true.

In an April 10, 2008 Los Angeles Times report (yes, that's the same L.A. Times that refuses to release the video), Peter Wallsten stated that at the 2003 Khalidi going away party, "A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama."

Wallsten goes on to say this:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

So we really don't need the video to know that Obama has a very friendly relationship with Khalidi.

What I would like to know is this: Why has Barack Obama tried to deceive the American people by claiming that his relationship with Khalidi consists only of his kids going to school with Khalidi's kids and of Obama having one conversation with Mr. Khalidi? This is the claim that he makes on his Fight the Smears website.

[Khalidi] is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy…To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take…So we gotta be careful about guilt by association. -emphasis mine

It seems to me that having a conversation with Khalidi is very different from having many conversations "around Mona and Rashid's dinner table." Why the disparity? What is Barack Obama trying to hide?

Here is the second important aspect of the video controversy that is largely being ignored: Reports are that domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were at this same event. If either of them, and especially Ayers, appears on this video, what would that do to Obama's claim that Ayers is just a guy who lives in the neighborhood? Is this why the L.A. Times refuses to release the video?

If you think that this Los Angeles Times should release this video, you can e-mail them and help to put the pressure on them.

Here's the address: readers.rep@latimes.com

Do we really understand what's at stake?

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
            – Norman Thomas, American socialist and six-time presidential candidate for the                Socialist Party of America.

In the early part of the 20th century, my great-grandfather owned a small farm in Romania. In order to provide a better life for his family, he moved to the United States in 1912. He had no money, but he worked and saved until he could afford to send for his family to join him in the U.S. in 1920. He, my great-grandmother, and their two daughters (my grandmother and my great-aunt) never had much, but they always worked hard and earned their own way in their new country.

The small farm that my great-grandfather left in Romania was given to his nephew, who stayed there and farmed the land until it was taken from him by the communists after World War II. From that point on he worked on a collective farm owned by the government. Whatever he and the other workers produced belonged to the government, and the produce was then distributed back to the workers according to the government’s own discretion. It didn’t matter how hard an individual worked, he could never have more than the government allowed him to have, and it was never much because the government spread the wealth around.

This transition to a communist government didn’t happen overnight. Beginning in 1944, with the backing of the Soviets, the communist party in Romania gradually became more powerful. In 1948 the party merged with a group from the Social Democratic Party and formed the Romanian Workers’ Party. By 1952 the communists within the Romanian Workers’ Party had taken from the social democrats near complete control of the party. In 1965 the party officially changed its name to the Romanian Communist Party.

As most Americans know by now, Barack Obama recently said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Unfortunately, too many people in this country are completely unaware of the full ramifications of such a philosophy.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA), however, is fully aware of its implications for the future achievement of their ultimate goal: the implementation of a communist government in the United States. That is their goal, and they see the election of Barack Obama as an important step toward the realization of that goal. But don’t take my word for it. Look at what they themselves have stated.

“We have turned a corner recently,” said CPUSA spokesman Sam Delgado. “I believe now we can achieve Communism in America within my lifetime, within the next 50 years.”

An article appearing this year on the CPUSA website states, “Right now the elections are the most critical form of struggle; this is where we have the best shot of finally breaking the back of the ultra right. Afterwards, we will continue to build a united movement that can work to establish a real electoral alternative, and eventually to challenge the system overall.”

Why do self-proclaimed communists see the election of Barack Obama as such an important step toward the implementation of their agenda? They have not in any of their writings that I’m aware of ever claimed that Obama is a communist, and neither am I making that claim. Remember, however, that as I stated above, the communists in Romania first joined with the Social Democratic Party. The newly formed Romanian Workers’ Party became the most powerful political party in the country, but it was 17 years before the country officially became a communist nation. In other words, the movement toward communism started as a socialist movement.

So is Barack Obama a socialist? Is that why various communists groups are so excited about the prospect of him becoming president? Certainly, many have made the claim that his economic policies are socialist in nature, and I would agree with them. His philosophy of spreading the wealth around is a socialist philosophy. Obama’s plan to increase taxes on some so that he can send a check to others is a socialist plan. However, Obama’s supporters claim that to call Barack Obama a socialist is nothing more than a scare tactic. It’s a political smear. It’s not true. He’s not a socialist.

So let's set aside, for a moment, his socialist economic ideas and ask ourselves another question. How do we explain the fact that, not long ago, Barack Obama was a member of a socialist political party: the now-defunct New Party?

The New Party was established in 1992 by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Most New Party members were from the DSA and the radical left-wing organization ACORN. The New Party also included members from the Communist Party USA and a CPUSA splinter group known as the Committees of Correspondence.

The New Party began to die after a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that its strategy of “fusion,” running a candidate on more than one party ticket, was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause.

By 1998, the New Party was essentially dead, but "New Ground," the archive section of the website for Chicago’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is quite revealing.

"New Ground 42" from September-October, 1995, says this:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates.
...
Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat. (emphasis mine)

The July-August, 1996 "New Ground 47" reports on the three New Party candidates who won primaries.

…the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. (emphasis mine)

Below left is the front page of the New Party News, Spring 1996. The section circled in red is enlarged on the right. As you can see, Barack Obama is clearly named as a New Party member.




















Here is a photograph from page two of the same paper. The photo shows winning New Party candidates Obama, Davis, and Martin posing with two other New Party members



So Barack Obama's economic policies are socialist in nature. He was a member of an openly socialist political party. Communist party members in the United States see the election of Barack Obama as an important step toward achieving their goal of a communist United States.

This should be a real concern for everyone who wants to keep America free. Yet, all of this is dismissed as nothing more than the scare tactics of right-wing radicals.

Some people will never look past the rhetoric of Barack Obama. They will continue to blindly support him; they will vote for him; and they will follow him into a change that our children and grandchildren will pay for. Nothing can be done about those people.

However, for those who are still trying to decide, for those who are interested in an honest examination of who Barack Obama really is, for those who are more interested in truth than in a carefully crafted image of hope and change, there's still time. There's still time to prevent the most dangerous legitimate presidential candidate in the history of the United States from actually sitting in the Oval Office.

You Must See This!

Think there's no connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers and Bill Ayers' radical friends? Think Again!

During the 1968-1969 school year, Bert Garskof was an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at Michigan State University; he was also the faculty advisor to the Michigan State chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS was the 1960s radical left-wing organization that gave birth to the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers' and Bernadine Dohrn's terrorist organization of the 1970s. Bill Ayers has called Garskof his mentor.

The following is a video of Bert Garskof speaking at an SDS reunion on the Michigan State Campus. This reunion was held on November 30, 2007, less than one year ago.

In this speech, Garskof is discussing socialism and what he sees as the direction the socialist movement must take. At about the 3:30 mark in the video, Garskof says that he may decide to work for Obama and that he can be excited about doing so. He goes on to say that working for Obama is not enough, that he must look and see into the future of the revolutionary socialist movement, but it is clear that he considers Barack Obama to be a part of the pathway to that socialist future.

Make sure you watch this video completely through to the end. Pay special attention when, at the completion of Garskof's speech, the camera pans to the right. See if you recognize any of the people who are standing and applauding.



In case you did not recognize any of the four people at the end, the man farthest to the right is William Ayers, and the woman standing next to Ayers is Bernardine Dohrn.

Bert Garskof has, indeed, gone to work for Obama as he said he may do. He has encouraged radical socialists to join the Obama campaign and to work with the thousands of Obama volunteers to create a "mass ongoing movement that lives on after Obama wins, a movement that would be in place to give the Obama Administration direct, on-going, immediate information from the base up..."

Barack Obama may have been only eight years old when Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were blowing up buildings, but the current influence of this socialist crowd on Barack Obama is undeniable.

No one can honestly claim to be pro-life and still support Barack Obama

I've often said that no one can call himself or herself pro-life and support Barack Obama. That may offend some, and that's not my intent. However, the fact is that Barack Obama is firmly on the side of the abortion industry, as much or more so than any other Congressman or Senator in the country.

In the third presidential debate with Senator McCain, Senator Obama said, "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true."

Actually, what he did was to vote against a bill that would have required medical treatment for an infant who was born alive following a botched abortion. Perhaps, for the master of rhetoric, there is a difference between voting to withhold treatment and voting against requiring treatment, but in practice, the result is the same: Babies die.

You can try to spin it; you can try to mislead and deceive; you can try to justify it all you want, as Barack Obama does and as Alan Colmes does in the video below. The bottom line, however, is that not only is Barack Obama 100% pro-abortion, he is so pro-abortion that he would not even vote to protect babies born alive and breathing outside the mother's womb because he was afraid it might undermine Roe v. Wade.

Now, if you are a person who claims to be pro-life, yet you support Barack Obama, you can try to justify that all you want, but no amount of justification changes the fact that if you vote for Senator Obama for president, you are voting to continue the annual slaughter in this country of over 1 million unborn children.

That's why I say that no one can honestly call himself or herself pro-life and support Barack Obama.

If you have any doubt about the human impact of voting for candidates such as Barack Obama, watch the video below.

Jon Voight's OP-ED Needs No Commentary; It Speaks for Itself

I don't very often just provide a link to an article without also providing my comments about what is said in that article. However, today I'm going to make an exception.

I have just found an OP-ED written in July by actor Jon Voight. It's an outstanding assessment of who Barack Obama is and of what we will be facing if Obama becomes president. Voight's OP-ED is concise, directly to the point, accurate, and powerful. I wish I had written it, but even more, I wish that everyone in America would read it.

Here's the link.

Have we forgotten this?

What has changed? What has Barack Obama done since 2004 to make him think that suddenly he knows what he is doing? Why does he now think that the short period of time that he's been in the Senate qualifies him to be President of the United States of America?

Obama for the Common Man - What a Fraud!

Does anyone really believe that Barack Obama is for the little man? Here is the price list for the press who wish to cover Obama's outdoor election night party in Chicago.

FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN....

The following coverage resource packages are available for purchase:

* Main Riser Position - $935 (Includes 4 Main Riser Credentials, 5'x8' Slot on Covered Main Riser and one 20 amp circuit)
* Main Riser Position with Telecommunications - $1870 (Includes Main Riser Position services, PLUS two unlimited long distance/local phone lines and one wired high speed internet connection)
* Cut Riser Position - $880 (Includes 4 Cut Riser Credentials, 5'x8' Slot on Covered Cut Riser, one 20 amp circuit)
* Cut Riser Position with Telecommunications - $1815 (Includes Cut Riser Position services, PLUS two unlimited long distance/local phone lines and one wired high speed internet connection)
* Press File Seat - $935 (includes 1 Press File Credential, seat in heated Press File Tent, Power, Cable Television, High Speed Wired Internet Service, Catering)
* Satellite Truck Position - $900 (includes 35'x20' parking position and 100 amp electrical service)
* Radio Position - $715 (includes table space and chair behind the riser, power and an ISDN BRI line for radio -- comes with two credentials)

Additional services may be purchased a la carte:

* Unlimited Long Distance Phone Line - $300
* High Speed Wired Internet - $275
* One 20 amp circuit - $165

The following credentials may be requested at no cost:

* General Press Area - No Charge (Includes access to bike racked press area with standing room only)

Request media credentials for the Election Night event:

Credentials to access the General Media Area are available at no cost. Please note that the General Media Area is outdoors, unassigned and may have obstructed views. General Media Area credentials do not include access to riser positions, satellite truck parking or the press filing center.

Source

Barack Obama calls himself a uniter. He's going to "change he world."

Barack Obama is the biggest fraud and the most dangerous man ever to get this close to the presidency of the United States.

Sarah Palin Rally

My wife and I had the opportunity yesterday to attend a Sarah Palin rally in Noblesville, Indiana (a town of 40,000 - just north of Indianapolis). It was a lot of fun to spend a day with 20,000 fired up conservatives. And yes, Sarah's great!

Getting into the rally: looking back from our place in line.

Getting into the rally: looking forward - still a long way to go.

My wife and I: happy to finally be in our seats.

From our seats: looking toward the back of the crowd.

Surprise appearance by country music star Aaron Tippin

(the one on the right with the guitar).

Aaron sang three songs:

1. "Where The Stars And Stripes And the Eagle Fly"

2. "Kiss This" (which he dedicated to Barack Obama)

-and his new hit that must drive the libs crazy -

3. "Drill Here, Drill Now"

Sarah: lookin' good while makin' a point.

And the crowd responds!

Obama to let ACORN "help us shape the agenda"

You know the headlines:

State, national officials investigating ACORN voter fraud

Congressmen call for ACORN investigation

FBI investigating ACORN voter registrations in KC

ACORN is committing voter fraud all over the country.

What you may not know:

They've been doing it for over 30 years; and Barack Obama intends to allow ACORN and groups like them help shape the agenda of his presidency.

Listen to what he says in this video:



Do you really like the direction in which Barack Obama will take this country?

ACORN - Just another scandal that has nothing to do with Barack Obama... Yeah, right.

                                                                       Picture Source: Social Policy

After a long and proud history of voter fraud, ACORN is finally getting the publicity it deserves. Reports of registering everyone from dead people to Mickey Mouse to the Dallas Cowboys' starting line-up, of registering people with non-existent addresses and social security numbers, and of registering the same person over 70 times, are coming in all over the country. Of course, Barack Obama is desperately trying to distance himself from this organization. He would like us to believe that he's never had anything to do with ACORN.

Let's take a closer look.

What the Obama Campaign is saying:

When Barack Obama ran a Project Vote voter registration drive in Chicago in 1992, "ACORN was not part of Project Vote..." - Fight the Smears

Fact

Project vote was closely tied to ACORN, even in 1992 when Obama ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois.

Sources

"Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them.) ” - Social Policy

"Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it...” - Obama’s Campaign Website

*************************************************************************************
What the Obama Campaign is saying:

"Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." - Fight the Smears - Oct 7, 2008

Note: The Obama campaign has very recently changed the wording to reflect the fact that he did, in fact, train ACORN employees and that he did work for ACORN in the capacity of lawyer. He was just never an official employee of ACORN.

It now reads, "ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee." - Fight the Smears - current

Fact

Barack Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois; he also ran ACORN leadership training sessions.

Source

“When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter...Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year…” - Social Policy

*************************************************************************************
What else do we know about ACORN and Barack Obama?

Fact

The ACORN Political Action Committee has officially endorsed Obama.

Source

"ACORN’s Political Action Committee today announced that it has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President." -Obama’s Campaign Website

************************************************************
Fact

In 2001, with Barack Obama and Bill Ayers serving on its board, the Woods Fund of Chicago awarded ACORN a $75,000 grant.

Source

Woods Fund of Chicago tax form, p. 38

************************************************************
Fact

Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN affiliate and reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that this money was for activities such as polling, event staging, sound, lighting, etc. The campaign has now been forced to amend the FEC report to show that the payment was actually for get-out-the-vote activities.

Source

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

No, we shouldn't connect Barack Obama with ACORN in any way. That would be using smear tactics.

Dear Mr. Obama

It's said every four years, but this year it just may be true. This may be the most important presidential election we've ever had. Spread the word.

Barack Obama: A Step in the Left Direction

I've been writing a lot lately about the relationship between Barack Obama and terrorist William Ayers. The national media is just now beginning report on that relationship. Because it's important that the masses know about the Obama/Ayers connection, I will continue to post on that issue, and I hope the national media will delve much deeper into the story than they have so far.

That being said, I now need to say that Barack Obama's relationship with terrorists is not the only thing that is extremely troubling about this man who would be President of the United States of America. Americans need also to be aware of the tremendous support that Senator Obama is receiving from known communists and socialists.

Let me begin by making one thing clear. I am not saying that Barack Obama is a communist. His ideology does, however, lean significantly in that direction. Furthermore, although Obama himself may not be a communist, many who are communists are excited about the prospect of Barack Obama becoming President of the United States. While they do not see Obama as a communist, they do see his election as a significant step in the direction in which they want to take this country. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the American communists themselves.

Writing on greatreporter.com, Matt Kennard, whose articles have appeared on the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) website, quotes CPUSA spokesman Sam Delgado. Delgado clearly expresses the hope and goal of American communists when he says, “I believe now we can achieve Communism in America within my lifetime, within the next 50 years.”

Sam Webb, the National Chairman of the Communist Party USA, outlines what he sees as the best way to get to a communist America. In his article entitled “New Times, New Opportunities,” written in April, 2008, Webb points out that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton is a “candidate of the left.” Keep in mind that when an avowed communist uses the words left or progressive, what he really means is communist.

While Webb points out that Obama is not a communist, he also describes how Obama’s election would lead to a furthering of the communist agenda for America.

The objective of this election is not to elect a candidate of the left or a Congress that is left in outlook. It isn’t doable at this moment. We wish it were, but in the spirit of Marxism, objectives should be grounded in concrete reality, not in wishes, not in flights of fancy that may momentarily soothe but come back to bite you in the end.

The reality of this moment is the following: the right wing has dominated political life for three decades and the task of the people’s movement is to dislodge them from power and create a more favorable political terrain on which tens of millions can fight and win going forward. In present circumstances the only way to do that is for this surging coalition to elect a Democratic Party president and increase the Democratic Party majorities in the Congress.

If that happens, it would not only constitute a tremendous victory for the Democratic Party, but also for tens of millions of people in this country and worldwide. It would bring closer that day when the movement fights for a more advanced political and economic program. (emphasis mine) There is no other way to get there from here.

Also on the CPUSA website, Erica Smiley and Dan Margolis further illustrate that the Communist Party USA is looking at this election as only a first step along the highway to a communist America.

The leading Democratic candidates represents the strongest opposition to the ultra-right we’ve ever seen in a presidential election.
...

This fight is winnable, and there is an actual strategy to win, a strategy that consists of more than playing at revolution and calling for chaos in the streets. Right now the elections are the most critical form of struggle; this is where we have the best shot of finally breaking the back of the ultra right. Afterwards, we will continue to build a united movement that can work to establish a real electoral alternative, and eventually to challenge the system overall. (emphasis mine)

The editorial board of the People’s Weekly World Newspaper, in another editorial for the CPUSA, reminds the faithful that even though “Barack Obama is not a left candidate,” he is a vehicle that Communists can use to get there.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.
...

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward. (emphasis mine)

Do you need more evidence that those who are openly communist or socialist are strongly supporting Barack Obama? If so, let’s look at Progressives for Obama, a virtual “Who’s Who” of Socialists and Communists.

The four co-founders of this group are the following:

Bill Fletcher, Jr. – A principal organizer of the Black Radical Congress, an organization with ties to the Communist Party USA. When once asked to describe his politics, Fletcher said, “I am an unapologetic socialist. I believe that capitalism is destroying the planet."

Barbara Ehrenreich - Honorary Chairwoman of the Democratic Socialists of America who celebrated the Communist Manifesto with an article on her blog entitled “The Communist Manifesto Hits 160.”

Danny Glover – A strong supporter of Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez, who has made guest appearances on Chavez's television and radio talk show, "Hello, President"; also a board member of Venezuela's TeleSUR news network, which Chavez created in 2005. Glover is receiving nearly $30 million from the Venezuelan government for a new movie that he is directing.

Tom Hayden - A principal organizer of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), who traveled during the Vietnam War to North Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, and Paris to meet with Communist North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders. Hayden called returning American POWs "liars, hypocrites and pawns" when they described their abuse in Viet Cong prisons.

Here are a few of the other fine Americans who have signed on to Progressives for Obama.

Carl Davidson – Was a national secretary of SDS who met with Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Davidson calls Castro “a remarkable man, with a photographic memory, wide knowledge and keen insights.”

Fred Klonsky - Former SDS member, son of leading CPUSA member Robert Klonsky and brother of Mike Klonsky who in the 1970s was the chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

Susan Klonsky - Former SDS member and wife of Mike Klonsky.

Mark Rudd - Former leader of both SDS and Bill Ayers’ terrorist group Weather Underground.

Jane Fonda - "Hanoi Jane," former wife of Tom Hayden.

Robin D. G. Kelly - Former member of the Communist Workers Party.

I’m fully aware that to some, this post might sound like the ravings of a neo-McCarthyist. However, before you make that charge, understand that McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations against political opponents without sufficient evidence. I’m not alleging that anyone is a communist or a socialist. These are people who are openly involved in communist/socialist activities and organizations. These are people who are leaders of the communist parties in the United States. These are people who have clearly stated that the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States will be a step in furthering their communist agenda for America.

Americans had better wake up and quickly. We had better wake up before November 4.

CNN Report on Obama/Ayers

Maybe word is finally starting to get out. This is a clip that CNN ran on Barack Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. There is still a lot more that needs to be reported, but at least this is a start, a sign that the truth about Barack Obama may reach the masses in time for Americans to make an informed decision on November 4.



If you don't want the most dangerous man ever to run for President on a major party ticket to sit in the Oval Office, help spread the truth about Barack Obama to as many people as possible.

Obama-Ayers Relationship Insignificant? I Don't Think So!

Barack Obama says that William Ayers is just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." However, it's well-documented here and many other places that Obama's relationship with Ayers goes far beyond that. It's an absolute fact that Ayers and Obama have had a relationship that has been closely intertwined.

Barack Obama and his followers dismiss his relationship with Ayers and his fellow-terrorist wife Bernardine Dohrn as insignificant.

Tell that to the family of Brian V. McDonnell, a sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department who died from wounds received when a pipe bomb planted by Ayers and Dohrn's Weather Underground exploded in a San Francisco police station on February 16, 1970.

Barack Obama tries to spin this by pointing out that he was eight years old when William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn committed these acts. That may be true, but Obama wasn't eight years old when he began his relationship with these people. He wasn't eight years old during his years of working with
      Brian V. McDonnell     Ayers. He wasn't eight years old when he began his political career with a                                           campaign kickoff/fundraiser in the home of William Ayers and Bernardine                                           Dohrn.

I doubt that the family of Officer McDonnell would think that any of this is insignificant for a man who wants to be President of the United States.

Palin: Bringing Out the Truth About Barack Obama

If you've been following the headlines the last few days, you know that Sarah Palin in now calling attention to Barack Obama's association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.

Good for her. It's about time this information starts to get out to the American people. I've written about it, and other bloggers have written about it. However, most Americans have still never heard of William Ayers, much less that Barack Obama has had a close working relationship with him. Palin needs to continue to expose Obama's relationship with Ayers, a self-described anarchist. She needs to also expose his relationship with Ayers' wife Bernardine Dohrn, a self-described revolutionary Communist who was once on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted List. She needs to talk about the fact that the community organizing that Obama is so proud of included chairing the board of an organization co-founded by Ayers and, while in that position, awarding a $175,000 grant to a project headed by Mike Klonsky, the chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).

This is just the beginning of the information that Sarah Palin needs to make sure the American public knows about. Of course, the Obama campaign calls this "offensive," "Swift-boat-like attacks," and simply "deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills."

The only thing here that's offensive is that Mr. Obama thinks that he should be able to hide these facts from the American people. He wants the people to vote for him for the office of President of the United States without even knowing of his connections to terrorists, socialists, anarchists, and Communists.

Mr. Obama downplays these relationships, calling William Ayers just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." His supporters deny that he has relationships with these people. These denials, however, do not change the facts, and the facts are very clear for anyone who wants to research them. I'll continue to reach as many people as possible, but my reach is limited. Let's hope Palin continues to force the mainstream media to cover this story.

The people deserve to know who Barack Obama really is before they go into the voting booth.

Unbelievable

Did anybody notice Katie Couric's first comment after the Palin-Biden debate? I wish I could find a transcript of her exact words, but this is pretty close.

Tomorrow's headline might be that Sarah Palin didn't embarrass herself or the campaign.

This is the most objective this major network news anchor can be? Katie Couric is the one who should be embarrassed!

Why are we in this mess? -The best-laid plans of mice and liberals...

Everyone seems to be asking the question: "Why are we in this banking mess?"

The answer is complicated, far more complicated than what I would claim to be able to fully explain. However, having said that, some fairly simple research reveals at least part of the answer, and it goes all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed by Congress in 1977 during the Carter administration.

According to their web site, the CRA was "intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods..." In other words, the intent was to enable people with a lower credit rating to purchase a home. That sounds like a good and probably well-intentioned idea, but you know what they say about the best-laid plans of mice and men.

CRA compliance is required for banks to receive approval for merger, to open a new branch, to diversify into a new line of business, essentially to conduct business. Compliance is rated by four federal agencies: the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. However, until 1995, compliance was fairly easy. Writing in City Journal, Howard Husock states, "During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups." However, this all changed in 1995 when the Clinton administration made CRA compliance much more difficult.

The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?

The result has been bad business practices forced on the banking industry. Lending institutions have been forced to give home loans to unqualified borrowers. In the February 5, 2008 New York Post, Stan Liebowitz writes that a Fannie Mae Foundation report points to one lender as an example of compliance to CRA. That lender committed $1 billion to high-risk borrowers in 1992, $80 billion by 1999, and $600 billion by 2003. That lender is Countrywide, which was on the verge of bankruptcy when it recently merged with Bank of America.

Husock adds that the new Clinton administration CRA regulations also "instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints." Community advocacy groups can postpone or stop federal agency approval by filing petitions with regulators. To avoid interference from these community organizations, banks often reach formal agreements with them.

By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."

As Husock points out, these community groups are left-wing organizations. ACORN, for example, is a left-wing voter registration group with a history of election fraud. A young lawyer by the name of Barack Obama once worked for ACORN, which is a part of what he is referring to when he refers to his days as a "community organizer."

As a lawyer, Obama once represented a client in a lawsuit against Citibank for denying mortgages to African-Americans and others from minority neighborhoods. In other words, Barack Obama was directly involved in creating the current banking mess that just last week he called "a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain..."

The really sad part of all of this is that with the help of the media, Obama and the Democrats have been able to convince Americans that George Bush, John McCain, deregulation, and the free-market system are to blame for the current economic crisis; when the reality is that over-regulation in the form of the CRA, and activists such as Barack Obama, working in left-wing advocacy groups such as ACORN, who believe that everyone should have everything handed to them - in this case a mortgage that they can't afford - actually bear the primarily responsible for the mess we're in.

Can we get the truth out?

E-Mail Janet H. Brown -- (and spread the word!)

Michelle Malkin has written an article exposing the fact that PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, who just happens to be slated to be the moderator for Thursday's vice-presidential debate, is fully in the tank for Barack Obama.

Read Malkin's full article here, then e-mail the Executive Director of the Debates Commission, Janet H. Brown, at jb@debates.org and demand that Ifill disclose at the start of the debate that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – the date of the next presidential inauguration - entitled Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Demand that she further disclose that she is the author of an article in Essence magazine entitled “The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family.”

Finally, I'm sure that Ifill will make these full disclosures, but just in case - get this information out to as many people as possible.