“No ObamaNation” - Page 13

part 1 of 2

By Doug Patton
October 28, 2008

If the elite media and their skewed polls are to be believed, Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. If that is the case, let us imagine for a moment what an Obama administration might look like if this radical leftist actually were to follow his heart and appoint people to his cabinet who share his view of the world. Here, then, are some highlights of some key members of Barack Obama's possible dream cabinet (in alphabetical order).

Secretary of Agriculture -- U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin would be the logical choice here. Harkin, a far-left Iowa Democrat who has served as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has never met an ag subsidy he didn't love.

Attorney General -- If Obama thought he could get away with it, he probably would place his wife, Michelle in this position, just as President John F. Kennedy did with his brother, Bobby. However, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy of the Peoples' Republic of Vermont would be equally vigilant on behalf of the rights of criminals and would therefore be a suitable second choice.

Secretary of Defense -- How about U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who, while running for president himself, once proposed a "Department of Peace"? (What Dennis the Menace has never understood is that the funny-looking five-sided building across the Potomac is our department of peace.)

Secretary of Education -- The obvious choice for this post is Professor William Ayers from the University of Illinois. This man is considered to be an expert in the field of education. He has written 17 books and is highly respected within the academic community. He is well known to Barack Obama, having served on at least two boards with him. He is also a self-proclaimed Marxist, anarchist and domestic terrorist who brags about having set off bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol building and at New York City police headquarters. He and Barack Obama share a desire to pollute young American minds with leftist propaganda.

Secretary of Energy -- Perhaps President Obama could get former Vice President Al Gore to fill this important post. Gore could just shut down what's left of our refineries and grind the nation to a halt. Of course, it's going to be hard to blame that on the Republicans if they are not in power. Oh well, they'll think of something.

Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Is Jack Kevorkian still alive? Old Jack really would be perfect to carry out Obama's creepy anti-life policies.

Secretary of Homeland Security -- As long as we have Bill Ayers in the cabinet, why not include his lovely wife, Bernadine Dohrn? Another domestic terrorist, Dohrn actually did prison time for her crimes.

Secretary of State -- Without question, the state department is the most visible cabinet post in any administration, and no one personifies Barack Obama's view of American foreign policy better than Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is widely known as a political dissident, anarchist and socialist intellectual. Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, Chomsky has established himself as a harsh critic of American foreign policy. He would be the perfect secretary of state to carry out Barack Obama's feeble foreign policy initiatives.

part 2

Secretary of the Treasury -- Although Obama has mentioned Warren Buffet as a potential treasury secretary, why go with George Soros light when you can have the real deal? Given the opportunity, why wouldn't Obama offer the job to the crazy, Hungarian-born billionaire who has invested so much in getting him elected?

For White House Budget Director, Prez Obama might have a tough choice between two highly qualified members of the U.S. House of Representatives, namely Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank. Rangel, of course, is the black congressman from Harlem and current chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He once equated tax cuts with racism. His appointment would fill a race quota. Then there's Frank, of Massachusetts, who was at the heart of the debacle with sub-prime mortgages that eventually brought down Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. His presence in an Obama administration would fill a gay quota. (Appearances are everything to Dems, you know.)

Then there are the eventual Supreme Court appointments, but I can't even allow myself to focus on any names beyond Hillary Clinton. Who knows? Obama might even get this motley crew approved by a Democrat Senate.

UN for Obama?

Posted by Greg Reeson

The Washington Post ran an article October 26 saying that an informal survey of staff members and foreign delegates at the United Nations revealed an "...overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body."


A couple of points here. First, why would nations that wield less power on the international stage want the United States to engage in more multilateralism? Is it because they have the best interests of the United States or the world as a whole at heart? Or could it be because they have their own self interests at heart and would prefer to see a diminished role for the United States, the de facto global leader, in every region of the globe?

Second, why wouldn't Republicans, or anyone in the United States, have a disdain for the UN? Founded with a noble purpose, the United Nations has floundered at virtually every opportunity afforded to it. The Security Council has become a joke, where nationalist self-interest prevails over what may be good for the international community. The United Nations may provide some valuable humanitarian and social services, but when it comes to global security, the world body is ineffective and dysfunctional.

The Post says "Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere." Think about this for a moment. Russia is trying to reestablish its position in the world, and it is probable that Vladimir Putin, who still calls the shots, Medvedev's election as president notwithstanding, sees a possible advantage in a more pliable Obama than a rigid, anti-Russia McCain. Does anyone really believe Russia is interested in multilateralism? France and Germany have long sought to unify Europe as a counterweight to U.S. power, and Britain is not the same ally it was under Tony Blair. Each of these countries, as is the case with all countries, is looking out for what is in their best interest, not what's in the best interest of the "global community."

"Many U.N. rank and file...see in Obama's multicultural background - a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas - a reflection of themselves. ‘We do not consider him an African American,' said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. ‘We consider him an African.'" That statement should provide a clue into the thinking at Turtle Bay: Less American, more international.

This is not just a personal attack on George W. Bush. According to the Post, "...critics of the Bush administration...acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years...." These critics, the Post says, "...say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history."

The implication here is that the problem is not Bush. The problem is American dominance. As Americans, do we really want a diminishment of our power and influence in the world? Do we want a lesser role in global affairs? Do we want a president who is seen as more multicultural than American?

The answer seems obvious to me.

Propaganda is Force!

Propaganda is words that collectivize and mold the public mind so that subtle or overt force is made easier or not necessary at all.

Carefully chosen words by the establishment is the basis of mass mind control leading to acceptance of force. Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued.

A whole volume could easily be written demonstrating the twisting and distortion of words and phrases to manipulate the public mind. Really, few escape this psychological warfare. Words are created and repetitiveness expands the collective psychic to accept and repeat. People who freely use those terms are not in control of their own thinking process. Following are some examples of establishment words and phrases:

See Your Doctor
It is oh, so evident that this phrase channels the crowd toward pharmaceutical control. The doctor is only the medium. Few doctors suspect that “medical orthodoxy” is a rigidly controlled system in the medical schools and practice by the pharmaceuticals. “Actually, the word witchcraft and sorcery in the New Testament comes from the Greek word pharmakia, from which we get our modern word pharmacy or pharmacist.” From Dr. Hallmark of the Wellness Group, from his article “Delusions - Monetary and Otherwise.” We have long held that so-called modern allopathic medicine is a very esoteric witchcraft—a deceptive practice that has little or nothing to do with curing or healing, but it does have to do with a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Public Health
This is a phrase that seeks acceptance as beneficial to the health of the people. It disarms any negative connotation. It greatly helps cover the medical fraud.

Life Expectancy
This programs the public psychic to expire when we retire.

Go to the church of your choice.
This says that any religion will do.

Taxpayer
This is one of the greatest deceptions in the English language. The system wants everyone to believe themselves a taxpayer or as one who pays his or her “fair share.” Since the government (and bankers) creates money (credit), why would they need you to pay taxes? They don’t but they do need a regulatory system and a dossier on everyone to profile your manner of living and yes, even your thoughts! It’s a thought system and a system of people regulation.

Tax dollars
No Such Thing! See “taxpayer” above. Our so-called “tax dollars” don’t exist as money going to pay government expenses. When we pay tax dollars, we are not funding the government or anything. We are reducing our consumption as part of social planning.

Your fair share
This is a collectivist concept that eventually evokes a guilty conscience. Few have any concept of what this means but it unconsciously produces a herding instinct.

Democracy
This is a big one and it has sucked in everyone. Democracy is a system of manipulated mob ruled by the elite. It is the very opposite of human liberty. Democracy is a front for despotism under the rule of an oligarchy. Hitler called his Nazi Germany “The Great Democracy.” Democracy does not mean freedom and freedom does not mean democracy.

Democrat and Republican
These words show how perfectly the same thing can have two names. Aren’t you glad that you go to the polls and vote? The politicians are laughing at us.

The government 'spends' money
The word “spend” suggests that money is finite or limited. This makes so-called “budgets” myths to occupy the public mind and to create the aura of the legitimacy of governments. The federal government does not “pay” or “spend” money. They create credit and exchange it for goods and services. Yes, they get everything for nothing. This is how the politicians “finance” their perpetual wars. Few people would pay real money to kill Saddam, along with our youth.

A 'Spread the Wealth' Plan for your 401k?

Americans are finally starting to hear about B.O.man's socialist agenda. His income tax policy of taking money from one group and giving it to another group who doesn't pay income tax is simply a welfare program. With Democrats in charge of the U.S. House, Senate, and the White House, that's exactly the kind of big-government program we would get. And it doesn't stop there.

Democrats are now looking at a plan to go after Americans' 401k accounts. These accounts serve as the retirement nest-egg for millions of Americans. They are used because money can be saved in these accounts tax-free. Oh, that is unless that new Democrat plan of "spread the wealth" becomes law. Then, we could all see our 401k tax breaks go out the window...


According to a report in U.S. News, Democrats are considering a plan that essentially end 401k plans in favor of a government-run saving plan. As the other notes:

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts. Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats, looking for a way to have government take over more aspects of our lives, recently heard testimony on a plan promoted by Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research in New York, "on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans."

In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

The topic is also covered in an article in Workforce Management. The Democrats' plan would target "the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive." In essence, the 401k would lose the benefits that make it popular including the "employer-matching" feature upon which so many average Americans rely.

“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.

Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.

“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.

The article quotes Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena. Van Slyke makes a key observation which I will repeat here: "This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism. People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so:Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny."

Let's think about that quote for a second and let it sink in. Van Slyke is absolutely right, and it's how the left-wing Democrats and Barack Obama are trying to move more and more power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. Even some Republicans are joining in. The $700 billion bail out is simply more big government, and yet you had Republicans jumping on board all in the name of "crisis" prevention. So-called conservative commentators like Fred Barnes need to take a hike and let conservative ideals work. While he enjoys his inside-the-beltway philosophical life style, average Americans around the country are suffering because government is taking more and more of their freedoms.... but I digress... back to the 401k scheme...

Barack Obama sees the current state of the economy, and he says, "Vote for me. I'll take money from the 'rich' and give it to YOU!" That rhetoric is shameful, and it is a step in the socialist direction. The Democrats see the current problems in the stock market, and are now using it to propose a government take-over of retirement accounts.

The key to see is the part where the government would put $600 each year into an account for every single worker. Where would that money come from? That money will have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from other Americans. More "spread the wealth" is not what America needs. The Democrats should be ashamed of using crisis to promote more socialism, and the Republicans are stupid for not pointing it out.

Come on! Show our conservative ideals for what they are, and expose Obama and the Democrats for what they are. Is it really so hard? This nation was founded on the basis of freedom, invention, and the entrepreneurial spirit. In these tough economic times, we need more freedom, not less. Come on, McCain... take that message to the American people. The government has no place raising taxes on any one. It should not take over people's retirement accounts. In tough economic conditions, we need an America that believes in the power of the American worker, not the power of the government.

Not Eligible To Be President! Not a "Natural Born Citizen"!

A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat, Phillip J. Berg, filed a case in Federal Court on August 21st, demanding that Barack Obama produce evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States . Only a natural born citizen of the United States can serve as President. Sen. Obama could have put the matter to rest by producing a valid birth certificate. Instead, he and his lawyers fought tooth and nail to block access to Obama's birth records.

the Federal Judge assigned to hear Mr. Berg's case, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled that an ordinary citizen of the United States does not have the right to file a case in Federal Court to challenge the credentials of a candidate for President of the United States !

Why would a Federal Judge go to such lengths to protect B.O.?

The Republican Majority Campaign is prepared to take legal action to require that Barack Obama produce a valid birth certificate to prove that he is a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be President.

Berg has now filed a request for an immediate injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court, to review his case before the election is allowed to take place.

Today's headline on WorldNetDaily is: "Constitutional Crisis Feared over Obama's Qualifications"

Evidence exists to substantiate the claim that Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution. His own paternal grandmother claims that she and two of Obama's half brothers were present at his birth in what is now Kenya, in 1961.

If elected, Mr. Obama may be the first candidate to win the election and be constitutionally barred from taking office. This would be an electoral disaster of epic proportions. That is just one of many reasons why Barack Obama must be defeated on November 4th. If Barack Obama continues to refuse to produce a valid birth certificate, proving that he is a natural born citizen and he is elected by the voters, then the Republican Majority Campaign will have no choice but to legally challenge the fitness of Barack Obama to serve if elected. RMCPac will aggressively pursue every legal option to challenge the election and disqualify Mr. Obama for perpetrating election fraud.

Courts in Hawaii , a state controlled by liberal Democrats, have denied the public access to Obama's birth records by finding that the American people do not have "a tangible interest" in Obama's birth records. In addition, Barack Obama and his lawyers have stopped the release of his records at Columbia University , Occidental College, and Harvard Law School, all of which should include his birth information.

People hide the truth because it will hurt them. A candidate for President has an obligation to the American people to produce valid proof he or she is a natural born American citizen. This is what the American people want. Instead, we get nothing but stonewalling from Senator Obama and millions of Americans believe he is hiding the truth.

Senator Obama, we demand you produce a valid birth certificate that proves your birth in Hawaii . As a would-be President of the United States, you should provide a certified copy to every journalist who asks about it and to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits seeking it. You must make the original available for inspection by any expert or news agency. Come clean and end the speculaton!

We must not let this issue corrupt, compromise or destroy the Constitution just because the media wants the O'man to win the election!

Why won't Senator Obama produce a valid birth certificate for the court?

Why is the media silent on this issue?

In the absence of valid proof, the only logical explanation is that Barack Obama cannot produce evidence that he is a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be President.

The Republican Majority Campaign will pursue this case, after the election if necessary, to legally require that Barack Obama produce a valid birth certificate proving that he is a natural born citizen. RMCPac will aggressively pursue every legal option available to prevent Senator Obama from perpetrating election fraud.