Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Five Big Challenges In 2013 That Dwarf The Fiscal Cliff


Discussion of the so-called fiscal cliff has sucked so much air out of the room that many people don't realize it's not the biggest thing we face as a nation. Indeed, many challenges loom. Will we be up to them?

Read More At IBD: Click here


Will Obama and our elected representatives be up to it?       Don’t bet on it!

As a nation, not only are we over the “fiscal cliff” and “national debt cliff”, we’re over the “moral cliff” too.  If the recent elections proved anything, it is that the candidates and our voting citizens are collectively driven by one guiding light . . . What’s in it for them.  The idea of doing what’s best for the nation as a whole is long gone.  The unions and their membership vote for those who will advance the union objectives of more money and guaranteed jobs for “theirs”.  Our elected representatives vote for more votes, more money, more perks and more job security for themselves.  Our voting citizens’ vote for those candidates they believe will get them more entitlements, lower taxes and more favorable legislation on any subject they perceive as in their self-interest.  Those who did not vote disavow their moral obligation to elect representatives who will do what’s best for this country, not just for the near future but over the long haul and regardless of what “the opposition” does and says about it.

It’s about collective survival as a nation folks, not about just you or just about me!  We are all in the same boat together and we will all float or sink together in the end.  If we delay appropriate course corrections much longer, the rush for the “lifeboats” will get ugly at a very personal level.


Sunday, October 7, 2012

Obama's Deficit Reduction Claims - More Lies!!



As political pundits delve into Obama's poor debate performance, not as much attention is being bestowed upon what he actually said Wednesday evening. The President repeated his thoroughly debunked deficit reduction claims, claims even his own budget plan proves to be false.

Hear what he said:
Listen to what he said at Debate Dissembling: Obama's Own Budget Proves His Deficit Reduction Claims Wrong”.  [Click & Scroll down to the video]

Accuracy: At one point in Wednesday night's debate President Obama boasted about his "balanced" plan to cut the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. One problem: His own budget exposes this claim as flat-out false.

Read More At IBD:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100412-628242-obama-massive-deficit-cutting-fib-.htm#ixzz28Z9Nxd7q
Interestingly, the link [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets%20/budget.pdf], provided in the IBD article to Obama’s budget plan at has been taken down.  Gee … I wonder why?  No matter, I found it here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

Review the President’s own budget document.  For those who don’t want to wade through pages of numbers, I’ve provided a highlighted page[206] from Obama’s own budget that clearly refutes his false claim about what he's doing for reduction of the deficit from the first 2012 presidential debate.

Those who want an unbiased review of his budget complete with graphical charts can be viewed at A Congressional Budget Office Analysis of the President’s 2013 Budget.

Now … I don’t know about you, but in my view a $1.98 trillion deficit reduction is more than a little short of the $4 trillion claim made by Obama.

It’s just one more proof that he will say anything he thinks will get him re-elected.  Just whose interest is he looking out for?  Certainly not American citizens.


Wednesday, September 5, 2012

You Owe It To Your Family & Country To See "2016"

The Obama Dream - That the sins of American colonialism be set right and America be downsized.









Are you ready for that?


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Tell Me Again Whose Fault It Is!


I think most of us know this but it is a good reminder with all the INVALUABLE information coming out of the present administration!

This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term. Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009; it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%.
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH.

Remember the day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA! And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA! and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush, REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd,2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress. The party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. In that first year,the Democrats had to contend with George Bush, who caused them to compromise on spending, when he somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of the very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years,and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama,who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.


Friday, August 31, 2012

Voting Rights & Photo IDs

The People Say Check For Photo IDs On Election Day


Published on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 20:00



    Written by IBD Editorial
 

Elections: Democratic politicians consider photo ID requirements discriminatory, but the people disagree. There's broad support for preventing illegal voting, a reflection of how precious Americans hold the right to vote.

Through our history Americans have defended and died for the right to vote. Daniel Webster called voting "a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform."

So it should be no surprise to find that across virtually every grouping, the IBD/TIPP Poll found majority support for making sure that only those eligible to vote should do so. Of 912 adults surveyed nationwide during the first week of June, 67% believed voters should be "required to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls before being allowed to cast a ballot."

Only 28% thought they should not be required, while 4% were unsure.

Among Democrats the breakdown was 49% to 45% in favor of the ID requirement, with 6% not sure. Republicans were heavily in favor of voter ID, by 90% to 8%, with 2% uncertain.

Independents also came in strongly in support, 69% of whom favored checking IDs, with 27% opposed and 4% unsure.

Those describing themselves as conservatives were 85% to 12% in favor, with 2% not sure. Moderates leaned toward the ID check by 63% to 32%, with 4% uncertain. Self-described liberals, on the other hand, were against a photo ID rule 57% to 35%, with 8% not sure.

Like liberals, blacks were opposed to voter ID, by a margin of 58% to 39%, with 3% uncertain. Americans of color, of course, were for decades the victims of abuses in voter eligibility procedures.

But liberals and blacks were the only two categories found to oppose the requirements. Most significantly of all the results, Hispanics were found to be 75% to 23% in favor of voter ID, with 2% unsure.

Single women were in favor by 58% to 35%, with 7% unable to make up their minds; married women were 69% to 26% for the requirements, with 4% not sure.

Strong support for voter ID spanned every income group, with 67% of those earning under $30,000 in favor and 66% of those making $75,000 or more also in favor. Education levels also made little difference: 69% of those with only a high school education favored the requirements, with 71% of those with some college also in favor, and 65% of those with graduate degrees in support too.
City dwellers were 59% for voter ID, while those in suburban and rural regions were about 70% in favor. Northeasterners were 61% in favor, while Westerners were 74% in support.

Midwesterners and Southerners came in at 63% and 69% in support, respectively.

The message is loud and clear:

Far from being racist or anti-immigrant, significant majorities of Americans across most demographic lines consider modern voter ID requirements to be a protection of this country's one-man-one-vote rule of the people, an assurance that the ineligible do not exercise a right to which they are not entitled.
  • Q: In your opinion should voters be required or not required to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls before being allowed to cast a ballot?

  • The Poll was conducted from June 1 (Friday) to June 8 (Friday), Sample Size: 912 adults 18+ nationwide, Margin of error - plus/minus 3.3 percentage points.
_____________________________________________________________________

The NAACP Manufactures A Phony Crisis To Perpetuate Its Existence

Wed, Mar 21

Voter ID: Holder Looks Through Race-Colored Glasses







______________________________________________________________________
 

Texas Voter ID Law Blocked

Fri, Aug 31 2012 00:00:00 EA0
 


______________________________________________________________________


If you've never wondered why the DOJ and the left is so persistent in stopping any attempt by the states to enact photo voter ID requirements, stop and think about the thousands of mail-in and absentee ballots they can and do alter and submit. Think about the reason they don't want the voter registration rolls purged of long dead citizens and folks with felony convictions. Think about "Chicago politics". Read about the voting abuses that have occured in past elections that the DOJ has refused to prosecute.  Read "Injustice: ..."

Monday, August 27, 2012

"MUST READ" Books Before The Coming Elections

One of the great things about vacations is the time it affords to read books that have been in my library that I just hadn't gotten around to for one reason or another.  This trip to the mountains allowed me the time for two that in retrospect I now wonder why I hadn't read them as soon as I got them.

By now, everyone should be aware that Team Obama has nothing that they want to talk about relative to the coming elections except what a bad choice their GOP opponents are.  Certainly not Obama's performance record since his 2009 election.  Maybe you already know why he shouldn't be re-elected, but just in case you don't, reading these books should help you understand why re-electing Obama is a bad thing for you, your family, your neighbors, your employer [past or present] and your country.

 
 

This is a “must read” book for every American who cares about equality of civil rights and color blind law enforcement regardless of race in this country.  The coming presidential elections may be your last chance to correct the trends which Obama and Holder have set in place within the DOJ.  You owe it to your family, your friends and associates, your neighbors and your country.  “Payback” is not what the civil rights movement was about.  The alternative which some liberals have in mind is bone-chilling!

 

The 2009 presidential election results were, to a large degree, based on racial pride of the black community but I think people should vote not for the skin color of a person but for the character of the person and what he or she stands for, the principles he or she believes in and lives by.  If you vote based on a person’s character, you know they will make governing choices that reflect that character.  If you vote for skin color alone, you’re doing an injustice to yourself, your family, your neighbors and your country and, as we now know, for changes that are not color blind and in the best interests of all.
Unfortunately, many voted based on skin color and few bothered to vet the man who, at his core, was and is bent on an ideological “get even” mission and the sacking our constitution.  That requires “big government” and a return to the plantation for everyone beholden to big government for everything from food and housing to health care.  It does not include the ability to advance and prosper based on your own abilities and ambitions.
Deneen Borelli has written about why our black leaders and the majority within the black community have embraced the Obama mission and what a return to “the plantation” has in store for them.  It’s a fast but insightful read that I recommend to all who want to understand what happened, what’s in store for our country if we don’t change course and how we can all work to reverse course before it’s too late.
If you're still not clear on why re-electing Obama is a bad idea, read a few of the books I've identified on the right side of Doggone Blog.  Then make sure that others who may still be setting on the fence read them too before they vote.

 

Saturday, August 11, 2012

How nasty will this presidential campaign get?

Bill O’Reilly Show Impact Segment [10August 2012]

The Obama campaign has produced a TV ad implying that Mitt Romney has been a serial tax cheat, while Romney's team created an ad questioning the President's character.




Laura Ingraham
Laura Ingraham, standing in for O’Reilly, discussed the nastier-by-the-day campaign with Washington Post newspaper editor Cathy Areu and Dr. Christopher Metzler, Senior Associate Dean, Graduate Management Degrees, Georgetown University.

"President Obama wanted to have the 'hope and change' message," Areu posited, "but because the other side has gotten so dirty they have to fight back. They are simply stating facts; I don't think the Obama campaign has done anything wrong. It is possible that Harry Reid is right and Romney did not pay taxes."


Dr. Christopher Metzler
But Metzler denounced the Obama team as issue-evading prevaricators. "This campaign can be described as lies, lies, and damned lies. Mr. 'hope and change' realizes that he has changed nothing, he has a dismal economic record, and his blaming of Bush is not working. He is 'hypocrite in chief' rather than commander in chief, these ads are absolutely ridiculous."

Ingraham then called Areu on her comment that “It is possible that Harry Reid is right and Romney did not pay taxes." Areu retorted that “It is possible that Romney did not pay any taxes ….. It is possible.”



Cathy Areu
So … this is what our nation’s schools are now turning out as factual, unbiased journalists.   Not only do the politically leftist media state possibilities as facts, they do it with the objective of creating misinformation and steering votes to 'their cause'.   Every socialist movement in recorded history since the advent of journalism in the 1600s has attempted to distort the facts through the use of propaganda, one of the more notable within the last hundred years being Julius Streicher of the Nazi Party.   I am a staunch defender of our Constitution and the right of free speech [First Amendment] but Americans deserve and are entitled to factual reporting.   Until the facts are established, items being reported by the press as being of public interest should be posited as opinions, not facts. Ever hear of the word alleged?   Yet Areu vigorously defended her statement that “it could be true”.

Tell you what Miss Areu; It is possible that Obama and Reid could be sodomizers of chickens!  As for you and the rest of your ilk, you deserve the same outcome that befell Streicher on 16 October 1946.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

A Perspective On "Leadership"

Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level. Leaders can be found and nurtured if you look for the following character traits.

A leader with vision has a clear, vivid picture of where to go, as well as a firm grasp on what success looks like and how to achieve it. But it’s not enough to have a vision; leaders must also share it and act upon it. Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric Co., said, "Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision and relentlessly drive it to completion."

A leader must be able to communicate his or her vision in terms that cause followers to buy into it. He or she must communicate clearly and passionately, as passion is contagious.

A good leader must have the discipline to work toward his or her vision single-mindedly, as well as to direct his or her actions and those of the team toward the goal. Action is the mark of a leader. A leader does not suffer “analysis paralysis” but is always doing something in pursuit of the vision, inspiring others to do the same.  Neither does he blame his failures of acheivement on others.

10 Top Leadership Qualities


Integrity is the integration of outward actions and inner values. A person of integrity is the same on the outside and on the inside. Such an individual can be trusted because he or she never veers from inner values, even when it might be expeditious to do so. A leader must have the trust of followers and therefore must display integrity.

Honest dealings, predictable reactions, well-controlled emotions, and an absence of tantrums and harsh outbursts are all signs of integrity. A leader who is centered in integrity will be more approachable by followers.

Dedication means spending whatever time or energy is necessary to accomplish the task at hand. A leader inspires dedication by example, doing whatever it takes to complete the next step toward the vision. By setting an excellent example, leaders can show followers that there are no nine-to-five jobs on the team, only opportunities to achieve something great.

Magnanimity means giving credit where it is due. A magnanimous leader ensures that credit for successes is spread as widely as possible throughout the company. Conversely, a good leader takes personal responsibility for failures. This sort of reverse magnanimity helps other people feel good about themselves and draws the team closer together. To spread the fame and take the blame is a hallmark of effective leadership.

Leaders with humility recognize that they are no better or worse than other members of the team. A humble leader is not self-effacing but rather tries to elevate everyone. Leaders with humility also understand that their status does not make them a god. Mahatma Gandhi is a role model for Indian leaders, and he pursued a “follower-centric” leadership role.

Openness means being able to listen to new ideas, even if they do not conform to the usual way of thinking. Good leaders are able to suspend judgment while listening to others’ ideas, as well as accept new ways of doing things that someone else thought of. Openness builds mutual respect and trust between leaders and followers, and it also keeps the team well supplied with new ideas that can further its vision.

Creativity is the ability to think differently, to get outside of the box that constrains solutions. Creativity gives leaders the ability to see things that others have not seen and thus lead followers in new directions. The most important question that a leader can ask is, “What if … ?” Possibly the worst thing a leader can say is, “I know this is a dumb question ... ”

Fairness means dealing with others consistently and justly. A leader must check all the facts and hear everyone out before passing judgment. He or she must avoid leaping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. When people feel they that are being treated fairly, they reward a leader with loyalty and dedication.

Assertiveness is not the same as aggressiveness. Rather, it is the ability to clearly state what one expects so that there will be no misunderstandings. A leader must be assertive to get the desired results. Along with assertiveness comes the responsibility to clearly understand what followers expect from their leader.

A sense of humor is vital to relieve tension and boredom, as well as to defuse hostility. Effective leaders know how to use humor to energize followers. Humor is a form of power that provides some control over the work environment. And simply put, humor fosters good camaraderie.

Conclusions


Now consider our current president, our Senate Majority leader, our previous House Speaker, and our Attorney General.  If you find any of them as displaying these qualities, I expect you'll encounter more than a little disagreement from others.  More appropriate terms for them include dishonesty, contempt, churlishness, arrogance, deception, ineptness and inaction, partiality, impudence, and animosity.

What qualities do you want in our leaders?  Think about it before you go to the polls this November.

Monday, August 6, 2012

It's Time For a Change


America needs your help!  Vote Obama out of office this November.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Obama’s Wars – The Dirty Dozen

After more than three years in office, it should be obvious to everyone that President Obama has a “progressive” agenda but my guess is that most folks tend to focus on the one or two issues that affect them most directly and dismiss the rest as just more political rhetoric on the part of his conservative opponents.   Besides, he’s such a likeable guy … and smart too.  Surely any president that has spoken some form of “I” or “me” more than 16,000 times during his first eighteen months in office is more focused on the state and needs of the nation than on himself!  Right?
Give me a break!  He’s focused alright, like a fox on the chicken coop … and we’re all candidates on his lunch menu.

Obama has been busy waging war on multiple fronts since the day he was sworn in.  David Limbaugh identifies no less than twelve in his newest book, The Great Destroyer – Barack Obama’s War on the Republic.

·         The War on America

·         The War on the Right

·         The War on the Disobedient

·         The War on Our Culture and Values

·         The War on the Economy

·         The War on Our Future

·         The War on Oil

·         The War on Other Energy Sources

·         The War on Business

·         The War on America’s National Security

·         The War on Guns: Operation Fast & Furious

·         The War on the Dignity of His Office

Each of the above is a chapter, replete with documented and annotated examples of Obama’s misdeeds, power grabs, congressional outflanking maneuvers and outright violations of the laws of our states and country.

If you value your rights and freedom, I urge you to read The Great Destroyer – Barack Obama’s War on the Republic.  You owe it to yourself, your family and friends, your neighbors and county.


Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Political Posturing Versus Liberal Transparency


A House committee has announced a June 20 vote on whether Attorney General Eric Holder is in contempt of Congress for withholding documents in the "Fast and Furious" scandal. It can't happen soon enough.
For more than a year, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has labored to find out the truth of White House involvement in the blood-drenched debacle known as "Fast and Furious".  [See Doggone Blog posts on “Holder” & “Fast and Furious” ]
As the saying goes, "The Wheels of Justice turn slowly but exceedingly fine."  In the case of the “Fast and Furious” scandal, that’s an understatement!  If the wheels turn any more slowly, the 2012 elections will have come and gone and the whole thing will be academic.  Could it be that the GOP is more interested in keeping this on “the front page” for political advantage rather than bringing to justice those indirectly responsible for the murder of Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry by Mexican drug cartels with weapons provided by our government?  Let’s hope not.

Meanwhile, the DOJ and Obama administration are giving new meaning to “government transparency”.

You do recall his 2009 speech don’t you?  No?  No matter, here it is in case you missed it or just can’t recall the particulars.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

“Nothing here … move along!”


“Nothing here … move along!”  So say Obama’s supporters and his propaganda media flunkies about his history of affiliations with organizations, people and institutions with socialist and far left inclinations.  His New Party endorsement in 1995 is just one of many of his radical leftist/”stealth” socialist links and easily confirmed by anyone who cares to do even a modicum of investigation.

Yet the following is a typical personal attack statement by one of his adoring supporters:  No, the President isn’t a socialist; everybody sane knows he isn’t a socialist …”.  There you have it folks.  If you think Obama is a socialist, you’re insane!  Oh yes; disregard any and all publicly available and verifiably factual evidence to the contrary.

 I believe it was Euripides (480—406 a.d.) who said, “Every man is like the company he wont to keep.  So let’s have just a small look at some of Obama’s “company”.

Saul Alinsky
He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals

Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour
Al-Mansour is an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally & patron of Barack Obama & recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988.

William Charles Ayers
ACORN CO-FOUNDER and Obama neighbor. SDS member.  Weather Underground member.

Heather Tobis Booth
Founder & President of the socialist Midwestern Academy & "initiator" of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (forerunner of Democratic Socialists of America)

Paul Booth
One of America’s key leftist activists. In the 1960s he was National Secretary of Students for a Democratic Society.  Paul Booth - A real power in AFSCME, Booth serves as Executive Assistant to Gerald McEntee, and is regarded by many as the ‘brains’ of the organization.

Caroline Boss
Marxist Occidental College Obama classmate

Harry Boyte
Theorist favored by Midwest Academy.  Obama studied his work and he advised Obama's 2008 campaign.

David Brock
Founder of MediaMatters.com (liberal blog)

Mohammed Hasan Chandoo
Marxist and Pakistani associate circa 1980 and major campaign bundler for Obama

Frank Marshall Davis
Communist writer and poet (1905-1987) and Mentor to a young Barack Obama in the 1970s

Bernardine Rae Dohrn
Lifelong socialist and Obama friend. SDS member

John C. Drew
Marxist - Met Obama & Chandoo 1980 thru Caroline Boss

Gregory A. Galluzzo
Gamaliel founder & United Neighborhood Organization of Chicago co-founder with Mary Gonzales , was one of Obama's teachers

Patrick Gaspard
Obama political advisor, ex-activist & agitator for far left organizations such as New Party, the Communist Party offshoot, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

Jacquelyne D. Grimshaw
Activist Obama neighbor & friend. Served as a senior advisor & director of intergovernmental affairs under Harold Washington, Chicago's far left Mayor, who was backed by Communist Party USA

Anne C. Hallett
2004 - 2005 worked with Illinois ACORN and National ACORN - A Bill Ayers & Obama supporter

Thomas Emmet Hayden
former husband of actress Jane Fonda.  A co-founder of SDS.  Obama supporter.

Keith Kelleher
Keith Kelleher is the head organizer for the SEIU Local 880 and contributes to Progress Illinois.

 He is the husband of Madeline Talbott.

Jackie Kendall
A high official of Midwest Academy & on Public Allies board.

John McKnight
Obama’s "community organizer mentor".  Helped recruit Obama to Midwest Academy.

Cecilia Muñoz
Appointed by Obama, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council & ex-La Raza Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation

Alice Palmer
ex-Illinois socialist leaning senator.  Recommended Obama as her successor in Illinois senate

Wade Rathke
founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 100

Madeline Talbott
Was the head organizer for Illinois ACORN & has been a field organizer, lead organizer & head organizer in many ACORN cities across the country. In 2000, she celebrated her 25th year as an organizer with ACORN & early organizers of the Chicago New Party

Jeremiah Wright
Obama's pastor.  "...not God Bless America. God damn America."[

Quintin Young
Obama confidant & high official in Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Progressive Chicago
The creation of SEIU, ACORN, Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party USA breakaway group Committees of Correspondence

Midwest Academy
Obama's organizing mentors had ties to it & his early funding was indirectly controlled by it.  Created a new way of blending socialism, community organizing & electoral politics





A lengthy feature by the Associated Press earlier this week asked the rather strange question, "Is Obama A Socialist?" A better question might be: Why doesn't the public know it?

It should come as no surprise that President Obama stands farther left on the political spectrum than any president in history.

After all, his $831 billion stimulus, TARP, auto industry takeover, crackdown on Wall Street and the banks, housing market manipulation, ObamaCare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of American business and profits are only a few examples of Obama's abiding belief in leftist principles.

What's strange is the mainstream media's continued efforts to debunk the idea that Obama is a socialist — recently going so far as to liken him to President Reagan, an absurd idea if ever there was one.

Fact is, Obama's socialist background runs deep — as IBD showed in a 21-part series that ran in 2008.




One doesn’t spend a lifetime fraternizing with, studying and advancing the philosophies of liberal activists and extremists to become a center-right conservative.   Every socialist movement since the dawn of mankind has resulted in the failure of the society that embraced it.  One need only study the history of such countries as the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Salvador, and France to name just a few.  As the presidential election approaches this year, the voters of America would do well to consider the outcome of President Obama’s wealth redistribution inclinations if he is re-elected.