Tag Archives: obama

Video: Your Country. Your Call.

I squeezed up front, but Obama was moving quickly and just passed me by. Then, in a moment of divine intervention, he saw me, clad in my red stop-sign of a dress, back-tracked ever so slightly in his procession, grabbed my hand, and gave that brilliant smile of his. I literally said out loud to the woman next to me who witnessed my good fate, “I’ll never wash this hand again.”

This is not how presidents are elected. The President is a leader. The President is a Commander-in-chief. The President is a decision maker with with enormous authority. But the President is first of all, an elected official. He is not a messiah. He’s not a savior. He’s not a supreme being. Countless number of times nations have chosen to worship their leaders. And nothing but harm came out of it. This year, on November 4 we need to elect a president. And not to give the keys to power to someone who call himself a symbol of America and says that a decision to vote him involves experiencing an epiphany.

If you think that this 1-min video can change a single vote, please send it to others. I’ve tried to put into it many things I’ve been warning about on my blog for the last month. There are hours left before we all will cast out votes. But some of these votes can still be changed once people realize the danger we all are facing.


The True Name of Barack Obama’s Change: Intolerance

I have to disagree with those who say that Sen. Obama has not achieved anything significant in his political career. He has some record setting achievements to present to America. He has managed to raise more money for his campaign than any other presidential candidate. $600,000,000 is no small amount, even if some of the money comes from very rich people like George Soros, very rich companies like Goldman Sachs, and a stream of unidentifiable foreign contributors. He has managed to gather more foreign votes than American ones. As a Kenyan newspaper said recently, the world has elected Barack Obama president of the United States. It is now waiting to see if the Americans will reject him on November 4. But Sen. Obama’s most important achievement to date has not been getting enough press: In less than a year he has managed to divide our country to the degree it has not seen for over a hundred years.

Remember the time when it was okay to disagree with (or even dislike) a presidential candidate? If you’re reading this, you’re old enough to remember that time — since it was just a year ago. It’s not okay anymore. Sure, many people, myself included, openly express their negative opinions of Sen. Obama. But what about the level of tolerance his supporters have for these opinions? It’s pretty low these days. If, somehow, you have been avoiding any political discussions, you’re in for a surprise.
Perhaps even for a shock. These days if you disagree with Sen. Obama you’re almost immediately called a racist. These days if you question Sen. Obama, like Joe the Plumber questioned him, you come under the scrutiny of hundreds of professionals in the press and in the government. These days expressing a concern about Sen. Obama almost guarantees you get a crash course on English obscenities.

I know — I’ve tried. Within two hours after expressing concerns about Sen. Obama’s character on my blog, I was called a racist pig, a right-wing nut, and Hitler. And these were the mildest of labels. But who am I to complain. The whole country is going crazy. Internet forums are seething with intolerance. “White people should not be allowed to vote!” says Philadelphia Inquirer — and stays in business, although had they suggested taking the voting right away from black Americans, they’d be rightfully facing a nation-wide outcry. An Obama supporter hangs an effigy of a VP candidate by a noose in front of his house — and gets only smirks from the bystanders. This is a Halloween decoration, he says in the interview with the press, standing in front of an effigy of the Republican presidential candidate being burned alive.

Since when did it become okay to hang a figure of a real woman — a mother of five — on the streets? Since when did it become okay to parade around with blood-covered guillotine decorated with the head of the President — a get not a peep from the media? I can tell you since when. Since Sen. Obama has started deliberately dividing the country. True, a good share of his speeches featured obligatory “united we stand” messages. But many, many other speeches have been sending a very different signal. For months Sen. Obama has been going on stage and drawing lines in every major cultural divide, be it race, income, party or gender, trying to turn Americans against each other. Let’s take a look at Sen. Obama’s own statements.

When it comes to race, Sen. Obama has played the race card time and again: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” he predicted back in June. They will tell you “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” he prophesied a month later. After each of these divinations an explanation was issued from Sen. Obama’s campaign explaining what he really meant. But to interpret these oracles you need not trust either his handlers in the campaign or his disciples in the media. Go to the scripture. Open Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father. It has quite a few of quotes like this: “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

Do you ever remember being called racist for not voting for someone? Last year, four years ago, ever? Now you have all kinds of people doing so, ranging from the media to a Democratic congressman, to your coworker. Why? Is it because the level of racial intolerance in America was suddenly and inexplicably on the rise last year? Or is it because someone very visible has been hinting over and over again that the main barrier standing between him and the Oval Office is racism?

When it comes to comparing incomes, Sen. Obama has been deliberately promoting class warfare. His endless talk about social justice and government-arranged wealth distribution is nothing but a new incarnation of a two hundred year old theory that has created the worst regimes in history.
Just days ago Sen. Obama labeled Americans who don’t support his idea of raising taxes “selfish.” Think about his famous ad that focused on Sen. McCain’s homes. How many people realized that the ad was simply attacking McCain for being rich? The ad portrayed people who have earned a high level of income as untrustworthy … even evil. So much for American dream.

Do you remember seeing rich vs. poor headlines a year ago? Now they adorn the front pages of newspapers every day. Is it because the poverty level has gone up dramatically over the last 12 months? Or is it because the most visible US politician has spared no effort to highlight that some people make more money than others … and that this is just not fair?

No matter where you look, Sen. Obama shows the same pattern: divide, divide, divide. Why? Because divide and conquer is a proven way to gain power. Month after month Obama paints a shining dream before the eyes of millions of people. He promises them hope. He promises them change. He gets some of them into a nearly ecstatic state where they literally think that they won’t have to fill their tank with gas anymore once they elect a President Obama. And then he hints that there are others who want to take that dream away from them. Others who stand against fairness and justice and equality. And he knows precisely what he is creating: his followers start seeing anyone who disagrees with Obama as someone who stands between them and their dream. And then we get chuckling crowds in front of an effigy of Sarah Palin hung by a noose.

People within a group — large or small — maintain a certain level of tolerance and respect for others in that group. This level of tolerance and respect can be moved up or down through physical or verbal manipulation or intimidation. Moving the level down is much easier than taking it up. Depending on the topic, you can argue for an hour with someone who has totally different opinion and still walk away friends. But when, in response to a question, your opponent calls you an idiot, a bigot, and a racist, you’re no longer in the mood for a polite discussion. The level of toleration and respect is likely to go downhill from there.

Nations are very large communities and they work in the same way. Once the level of tolerance and respect has gone down, getting it back up is very hard. Deliberately dividing people to achieve political objectives is a very old trick in the book of power. It has often worked. When it does work, it has always cost the people of the nation who have been blinded by inspiring divisive orators.

America is on a dangerous path. It’s easy to forget how lucky we are. We’re not a perfect community — there are no perfect communities. We’re not one happy family — we’re millions of families, some of them quite unhappy. There are tensions; there are problems; there’s some hate to overcome; there are some really ugly things to take care of; and there are thousands of issues to solve. But if you look around at what’s been happening in the America, if you look back at our own — not so distant — past, you realize that what we’ve been having for the last two decades is probably as good as it gets in the real world. As a nation we’ve been quite all right for a while. It tells you a lot about a person when he steps into the spotlight and time and again tries to pit us all against each other, camouflaging his actions beneath sweet images of hope and change.

Sen. Obama has broken quite a few promises this year. But, you can be sure, he’ll be a man of his word when it comes to his fundamental promise … change. Not only he will bring it — he has already given us a good preview of it. It’s not in the speeches and rallies. It’s in the newspapers and the spiteful remarks on the internet forums, in the rhetoric of politicians and the Halloween decorations on the streets, on the t-shirts shamelessly promoting hate, and in the crowds booing people holding a McCain sign. It’s everywhere. This change has many names but the key one is intolerance. And everyone should think twice before voting for it. There’s some deep irony in the fact that the campaign that was supposed to be the last step in helping America to leave a shameful past behind has created a shameful present. It’s up to us to ensure that it doesn’t turn into an even more shameful future.

Published in 11/04/08 issue of American Thinker

Email this

Nov 4: Your Country. Your Call.

On November 4th it all really boils down a very simple thing: the Future of our country. And here is why.
When I started this blog about a month ago I wasn’t thrilled about Sen. Obama’s presidency, but it was hardly a grave concern. I didn’t like his track record, I didn’t like his lack of meaningful experience, I thought he had been flip-flopping too much on key issues, I was annoyed by open bias of mass media. Worst case, I thought, it’d be 4 years of a demagogue with strong left views. We can live through that. Countries swing from right to left and back — it’s a cycle. This is how democracies work. You can easily see this on my blog – just four weeks ago I wanted to keep it light and funny, pointing out things like the fact that the “change” VP pick had been a Senator for 35 years. But as I looked more and more into Sen. Obama’s past and his recent actions, I started to realize that we’ve been dealing with something entirely different — something that America has never seen, at least not on such scale.

It’s been almost like unclogging a sink — you open it, you take something out, then you take out more, and what starts coming out after that makes you wish you never opened that thing in the first place. Forget “change” VPs with decades of Senate history. How about close relationships with people involved in international terror? Or laser sharp focus on indoctrinating children? Or a laundry list of every modern-day tyrant openly expressing support? Or persistent suppression of free speech? Or going for twenty years (and bringing children) into a church that openly promotes hate of white people, just as openly supports Hamas and condemns our country on regular basis? Or campaigning for a radical with Islamic ties who threw a stable country into a bloody mess? Or close ties with people who led an organizaiton that unapologetically bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and a police station and who were on the FBI Ten Most Wanted List? Or vote fraud of monstrous proportions? Or accepting a flow of donations from unidentified foreign sources? All of above — and more – is on Sen. Obama’s resume. It’s not in some classified files, it’s not locked in some FBI closet, it out in the open. I’m not talking about GOP sponsored books, I’m talking about media — the same media that’s been so curiously and unapologetically supporting him. Sen. Obama’s own actions and sentiments (especially those he made before running for President) speak louder than any Republican paid advertisement. A resume like this would’ve been a road block for someone running for a seat on a city council. Here we’re talking about the most powerful post in the world – and people choose to ignore all of this, lulled by the promise of change.

Facts are stubborn things. You can choose to ignore them, but you can’t make them go away. And all the facts point to the same simple conclusion: if elected, Sen. Obama and the people he represents would completely change the country. They WILL change it. In four year it won’t be the country we know. It will be something quite different. Call that state socialist or communist or obamunist, apply any label you want, but the change that’s coming is the most dangerous change our country has faced in its modern history. And all you need to see it coming is just read what’s out there and think.

I’m just a regular guy with moderate views who has bothered to read enough. I’m by no means a hard core right and I would’ve been ok with another four—or even eight—years of a Democratic president. Again, this is how democracies work. But now I’m informed and I can see what anyone with unbiased mind can see after getting the facts: this election is no longer about choosing between Republicans and Democrats. It’s about choosing between our democratic system as we know it and a totally different state. In that state — which Sen. Obama and people behind him have been working hard to create, free speech will be not so free. In that state, tolerance will not be so tolerant. And in that state many things you’ve been taking for granted will slowly but steadily cease to exist. Many — too many people – don’t realize this. They will vote for Sen. Obama, believing they vote for a bright shiny future. But it’s just a matter of time. In a year or two many of them will say “This is not Barack Obama I thought I knew”. Today it takes a few facts and some knowledge of history to start seeing things the way they really are. In two years it would take way less than that.

Many people also don’t realize another simple thing – electing Sen. Obama would give him unprecedented power, delivering him keys to all three branches of the U.S. Government. In addition to the White House and his party being already in control of both chambers of Congress, he will have an unparalleled influence on shaping the judicial branch, since would need to appoint a large number of Supreme Court judges. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you really have to find out more before you vote, since it’s one of the least highlighted yet of the most fundamental aspects of this election.

Again, electing a Democratic president is not bad. But it has nothing to do with giving ultimate power to a smooth talker with a mile-long list of radical, racist, socialist and terrorist ties and proven record of supporting most radical changes in our society. This is not how democracies work. This is how they fail.

This year, on November 4th it’s not just another presidency that is at stake. It’s the future of our nation.

Read. Think. Vote. It’s our country we’re talking about.

  Email this 


Kenya: Barack Obama’s Other Change

He was the opposition leader in a country of 37 million people, one of the most stable and prosperous democracies on the continent. Initially, he wasn’t the favored candidate to run against the President, seeking the second term. However, in August 2006 his candidacy received an enormous boost, thanks to the strong help of a U.S. Senator, who spent 6 days actively campaigning on his behalf across the country. Then, in December 2007 election came, and he lost it by more than 230,000 votes. He didn’t like the result and accused the government of fraud. Hours after the election results were announced, machete-armed mobs of his supporters (predominantly Muslims) went on a broad rampage against the supporters of the government party (predominantly Christians). They burned homes and businesses, raped women and slaughtered everyone on their path. The country was thrown into its worst political crisis of the last half century, bearing all the signs of a well orchestrated genocide. Eventually, the government was pushed into negotiations — at the cost of over 1,500 lives, 600,000 displaced people and 35 women and children who were locked up in a church and burnt alive.

Today he is occupies the newly created post of Prime Minister, sharing power with the President. His name is Raila Odinga, the country he leads is Kenya, and if you don’t care about Kenyan internal affairs, you should. Because the name of the U.S. Senator who gave him that ultimate boost was Barack Obama.

It was Sen. Obama who — at taxpayers’ expense — in August 2006 spent 6 days in Kenya, going from a rally to a rally with Odinga and sharply criticizing Kenyan government. In his signature style he was cheering up one crowd after another, telling them: “Kenyans are now yearning for change”. “You will decide if your leaders will be held accountable, or if you will look the other way,” he told the crowd of thousands of students at the University of Nairobi. During these six days he received more media attention than Kenyan President, alienated the elected government to the degree that the government spokesman called him a “stooge to Odinga” in BBC interview, excited many screaming crowds — and left the country, having significantly strengthened Odinga’s candidacy as the opposition leader. International press coverage of the trip’s aftermath was not as cheerful as the coverage provided by US media. “Obama‘s Kenya ‘honeymoon’ ends abruptly” reported Agence France Presse in August 2006. “Mr Obama was made into something of a mascot by Raila Odinga” said The Economist in the article titled “America’s rising star sweeps the Kenyan primary”.

The story doesn’t end there. It gets worse. As it turned out, in August 2007 Odinga (who graduated from East Germany’s Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship provided by the East German government) had signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Kenya’s Muslim leaders, promising certain broad changes in exchange of their support. To put what you’re about to read in perspective, you have to realize that Muslims constitute 10% of the largely Christian population of Kenya. In this document, Odinga promised among other things, to recognize “Islam as the only true religion,” to give Islamic leaders an “oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original],” establish within a year Shariah court in every Kenyan region, and to ban Christian preaching on national broadcaster. The document also included explicit promises to disband Anti-Terror Police Unit that Kenyan government had formed to collaborate with the U.S. on anti-terrorist activities, and a promise that no Muslim, whether a citizen or a visitor, should be subjected to any process involving the laws of a foreign country (in particular any Muslim arrested for or suspected of Terrorism). In other words, Odinga explicitly promised to turn Kenya into in a safe haven for Islamic terrorism. The full text of this memorandum gives even better idea of change that Odinga planned to bring to Kenya.

Sen. Obama strongly supported a radical leader who explicitly planned to turn a close U.S. ally into a safe haven for Islamic terrorism and to turn a country with predominantly Christian population into a radical Islamic state. When this leader lost the election, his supporters threw the country into chaos and through continued violence blackmailed the President into offering their leader the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government. Only then the violence stopped, leaving 1,500 dead, 600,000 displaced and 35 people burnt alive in a church.

Read the paragraph above again. If you’ve been planning to vote for Sen. Obama and these facts do not concern you, you’re wasting your time reading this material. You have obviously made your choice and no fact, no matter how shocking, would make you reconsider your opinion. But if does concern you, please, spend some time getting to know Sen. Obama better before you give him your vote. Find out more, get the facts, ignore the politics, form your own opinion. And only then vote. And if you are concerned, please share this material with others. The media that in 2006 paid unusually high attention to Sen. Obama’s trip to Africa, has been as unusually silent about the trip’s impact on Kenya (with some notable exceptions such as Washington Times and New York Sun). Many bloggers have written about it, but neither Newsweek that back in 2006 reported that Sen. Obama “was received in a manner more befitting a messiah than a junior senator bearing nothing more than opinions and good cheer” nor the Washington Post, which around the same time reported that “the U.S. senator has already become the country’s most prominent ‘citizen'” have said a word about the boost Sen. Obama gave to Odinga. The trip, which before the crisis had been used for stunningly propagandistic materials such as Senator Obama Goes To Africa video, immediately lost its appeal to the media once supporters of the man so vehemently backed by Sen. Obama, went on a killing rampage. This doesn’t mean you have to be silent about it too. In fact, it means the opposite.

And what was the theme of Raila Odinga’s campaign? It was “Vote for Change“.  His motto? “Your Agent for Change”. Sounds familiar?

Email this  |  Watch 8 min documentary  |  Read a detailed report

UPDATE 10/23/08: Added several links; slightly adjusted the wording.

Dad, What Was That Thing You Said About President Obama?

For over 50 years–since 1932 till the demise of the Soviet Union–all children in USSR were taught the story of Pavlik Morozov. Pavlik was a 13-year old boy who denounced his father to the authorities for hoarding grain. As result, his father was tried and promptly sent off to die in GULAG, while Pavlik was glorified by the official propaganda after being killed a year later (allegedly) by the members of his family. Every Soviet kid knew this story. Every Soviet kid was taught that the state was more important than family. Every Soviet kid was taught that what Pavlik did was heroic. Just in case you’re wondering what exactly hoarding grain is, it means to refuse giving one’s crop to the state. Pavlik’s father’s crime was that he refused to participate in spreading his wealth around. And for a hard-core Socialist regime there aren’t many crimes as bad as this one.

If spread the wealth around catchphrase sounds familiar, it’s because Sen. Obama’s fundamental economic principle is nothing more than a new incarnation of Karl Marx’s “income redistribution” doctrine, which is a cornerstone of socialism. The people who Sen. Obama has called his mentors got this principle straight from the same source that has been inspiring radical left leaders ranging from the founders of Soviet Union to the people who rule modern Venezuela. At that instantly famous conversation with Joe the Plumber Wurzelbacher, Sen. Obama made a stunning blunder–for a minute he took his mask off and openly described his economic views of a hard-core Socialist in very plain words. And as it turned out, Joe the Plumber heard exactly what Sen. Obama said–that he plans to take money from those who have succeeded and distribute to those who haven’t. So did (though in a softer way) the Wall Street Journal. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

So what does this have to do with a boy who sent his father to die in a labor camp for not sharing the results of his work with others? Everything. Taking power–whether by revolution or by election–is only the first step. The next step for every socialist regime it to keep this power. And there’s no better way to keep power for long time than raise a generation of blind followers. People who don’t ask questions. People who believe. And to create a generation like that you’ve got to go straight into the heart of mindset building–education. You have to catch them while they’re young. Which is exactly what the camp that Sen. Obama’s represents has been doing diligently–even before winning the election. For example, 8th grade students in Racine, Wisconsin are now using a textbook that contains a 15 page section on Sen. Obama and has his works tightly integrated into curriculum. This picture is worth many words, but if it isn’t enough feel free to explore the textbook yourself–you’d find 8 references to Barack Obama and 2 references to a less prominent politician known as Abraham Lincoln.

Make no mistake, this isn’t a minor blimp in the otherwise unshakable American education system. To put it into perspective consider the post-terrorism career of Bill Ayers, characterized by Sen. Obama as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, and who in reality has played a key role in launching and promoting Sen. Obama’s political career. After bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, Mr. Ayers has established himself as a prominent figure in the field of education. He has authored many books on “critical pedagogy” method and has shaped views of many teachers, especially those in elementary schools. Finding exactly what he advocates is nearly impossible from the mass media articles. However, in his own writings, e.g. in a description of a course he teaches Mr. Ayers is quite clear on his present views: “In a truly just society there would be a greater sharing of the burden, a fairer distribution of material and human resources”. His other present-day writings also include “Sing a Battle Song” book, which he hopes–as  he says in the preface–to be “of use to new generations of militant activists and organizers”.

It’s your children he’s talking about. And he’s got very close to fulfilling his dream, thanks to Sen. Obama, who, if elected, would give keys to the education to him and people like him. And then don’t be surprised if one day your kid questions your willingness to re-distribute your savings. Most terrorists never outgrow their guns and bombs. But the smartest ones eventually become legitimized and take control of the most powerful weapon of all–education.

Email this

Change They Can Believe In

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad–the man who has hosted a conference The World Without America and called for destruction of the US–told you to buy stock of a certain company, you likely wouldn’t have touched that stock with a mile long pole. Had Muammar Qaddafi–the man directly responsible for the death of 180 Americans in the second deadliest terrorist  attack against the US–advised you to buy from a certain store, you probably would not have set foot in that store for the rest of your life. Had Hamas–the leading terrorist force elected by the people who happily danced in the streets on Sep 11, 2001–thrown its support behind a candidate for your city’s mayor, you likely would’ve voted against that candidate for that reason alone, and perhaps would’ve called FBI.

And yet when all these people accompanied by other sworn enemies of our country such as Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro explicitly advise you to give the ultimate power to Sen. Obama, their endorsement does not become a shrill firefighter siren you’d expect it to be. The endorsements speak for themselves:

  • Hamas (top political adviser Ahmed Yousef ): “We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election. “
  • Kim Jong-Il: “We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama than with … McCain”
  • Castro: Sen. Obama is “the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency”
  • Ahmadinejad: “We do prefer to have relations, whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that”
  • Qaddafi: “I’ve seen that in America, a candidate who wants people to vote for him keeps talking about change”.
  • Daniel Ortega: “We are facing a revolutionary phenomenon”

The list goes on. Yet, no one–at least no one in mainstream media–seems to be even asking a reasonable question of why all these America-hating leaders would so unequivocally support an American president candidate. Perhaps they don’t ask it because they don’t want to face the simple truth: unlike many American voters, these American-hating leaders fully understand the nature of change Sen. Obama will bring if elected. If people who’d rather see you and your children dead, endorse this change, a good question to ask yourself is whether this is the kind of change you want.

Email this

Voting for Change

The country is tired. The growing global financial crisis has been hitting hard, banks are suffering, unemployment rate is high, the outlook is gloom. The government seems be almost incapable to change things for the better. Along comes a charismatic young leader. He’s a relative outsider, his is a very talented orator, he has written an autobiography which portrays him as a true leader with a strong set of beliefs, he can talk in front of thousands of people and bring hope back to their hearts. He promises change, he promises social justice, he promises hope. Election day is just around the corner…

The year is 1932, the country is Germany and the name of the charismatic leader is Adolph Hitler.

The point of this analogy is not to equate Sen. Obama to Hitler. The point is that in the times of prolonged difficulties, change is absolutely the best platform to run on. Blame everything on the existing government, promise hope and change, add a bit of social justice to appeal to a broad electorate–and people will give your the office, without bothering to look into your past and taking no time to think about consequences. Whether in Germany circa 1932, Italy circa 1921 or modern Venezuela circa 1998, this platform has worked flawlessly. People voted for change–and gave power to Hitler, Mussolini and Chavez. When they realized that they had been mislead by empty promises it was too late.

The right to vote comes with responsibility. Responsibility to see through slogans. Responsibility to look into the candidates’ past. Responsibility to think. Nations that take this responsibility lightly pay the ultimate price: they lose their right to vote.

Email this

Be Careful What You Vote For

If you’re considering to vote for Sen. Obama, your first reaction to the picture above is probably to dismiss its message as Republican scare tactics. But before you do that, please ask yourself whether your reaction would be the same if instead of Sen. Obama, there was someone else running for the Oval Office. That somebody would be a politician, whose mentor was known as a father of modern left radicalism and proponent of “silent revolution”; a polician who has publicly called for creation of a domestic “security force” as powerful as U.S. military; someone who just as publicly has said that U.S. should be more like communist China; someone who said that as The President he would make every American middle student (i.e. every 11 year old  kid) to perform 50 hours of public service a year. If the candidacy of this person makes the picture above less far-fetched, you may want to reconsider your initial reaction. That politician is, in fact, Sen. Obama himself, though it’s not the Sen. Obama you may know from the news.

Sen. Obama has been an ardent follower of legendary Saul Alinsky, whose book Rules for Radicals (considered one of the best handbooks by the radical left) states the following in its opening chapter: The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. Saul Alinsky’s son has recently praised Sen. Obama’s shrewd use of socialist methods in his campaign and stated that “Obama learned his lesson well”. It was Sen. Obama who called for creation of powerful domestic security force, it was he who very recently said that America should be more like China, and it was he who recently promised a mandatory service for every kid and every student: “when I’m President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year” and it was he who has clearly hinted at reestablishing the draft.

Sen. Obama indeed learned his lesson well. Very well, in fact, for he was able to deceive many voters who would never even consider voting for someone with his views and agenda, had they known the truth. And part of the lesson Sen. Obama’s teachers have taught him is the need for a huge, strong, controlling government that knows better what’s good for the country than its citizens. It’s the same sort of government that other talented students of this doctrine have established successfully in quite a few countries over the last century. Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany and–very recently-Venezuela. It’s called police state and you simply must have it if you want to push your agenda on your citizens whether they want it or not. This is the true nature of change that Sen. Obama would bring if elected. As for the use of the familiar round logo in the picture above–watch out for the upcoming post on the role symbols play in politics.

Email this

Are the minds of American children up for grabs?

Every thoughtful national leader understands the importance of education. Every thoughtful government invests into it. Yet, there’s one thing that makes socialist and communists governments truly distinct when it comes to raising children. While democratic nations teach their kids to think, dictatorships teach their kids to believe. To believe blindly, with no doubt, with no room left for questions. Whether in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany or in modern day North Korea, children have been always taught to follow the party line. Moreover, they’ve been taught to follow the party leader.

There are striking and alarming similarities between their approach and those used by Sen. Obama and his supporters. The screenshot in the poster above is taken from a video that’s been circulating on internet recently. If you haven’t seen it yet, make sure you do. In this video (claimed to be a result of a grassroots community effort and later turned out to be a work of professionals) children aged 5 – 12 sing a song praising Sen. Obama, describing how “he’s gonna change it and rearrange it” and promising to “spread happiness”. This is a preview of the methods that would be used to shape minds of American kids, should Sen. Obama get elected.

To get another preview take a look at this video. There, you wouldn’t see cute little kids singing about hope. Instead you’d see where this education leads—a group of young men in semi-military uniforms, with a familiar round logo, chanting Nazi Youth-style “Obama! Obama!”. It’s not too late yet to prevent this madness from taking over our country. But time is running out. The worst crimes in the modern history were done by when smart power-hungry men seized the education of the youth and raised a brainwashed generation, ready to follow their beloved leader to spread happiness and change the world.

Is America Ready?

This series will likely become the most controversial of all the Dr. Slogan pills. Yet only strong medicine can help in times like ours. Let me get this straight: I’m all for having people judged for the content of their character and not by for the color of their skin. And that’s precisely why people who consider voting for Mr. Obama because of the color of his skin should think twice before casting their votes. For by doing so they’d be turning Martin Luther King’s dream on its head.

People still keep asking with a straight face whether America is ready for its first black president. America has proven that it’s more than ready by skyrocketing a person with little credible experience and proven ties to radicals to the top of the presidential race. Americans gave him enough votes to defeat a seemingly undefeatable Democratic contender. Americans gave him enough support to put him ahead of his GOP rival in every poll. Americans are more than ready. So it’s time to stop talking about skin and start looking at qualifications. I for one, couldn’t care less about the color of Mr. Obama’s skin–just like I don’t care about the color of his eyes. I do care, however, about his character, for its his character–not his skin–will shape the future of my country. And this is the time to ask yourself: are you ready for your President to have Mr. Obama’s character?

Note: Only authentic photo materials are used in “Is America Ready?” series. The original of the photo used in the poster above can be found here.