¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Black pro-life leader rips Obama
‘He doesn’t care that abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans’

Posted: January 10, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
The leader of a black pro-life organization is blasting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for “applauding the efforts” of those who are aborting unborn African-Americans.

Day Gardner

Day Gardner is president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, which helps to coordinate the efforts of black pro-life groups.

“Senator Obama doesn’t care that abortion has obliterated the rights of more than 15 million black children since 1973,” Gardner said in a statement. “He doesn’t care that abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans surpassing deaths caused by accidents, heart disease, stroke, crimes, HIV-AIDS and all other deaths – combined!

“He won’t make one of his powerful speeches decrying the injustice of abortion providers as they plant killing centers firmly in black communities – making it easier to kill black children. Instead, he actually applauds their efforts! These children are denied their most basic human right, which is the right to life, a right which our ancestors so proudly worked for, marched for and many of them died for.”

Obama’s record of supporting abortion in both the Illinois state Senate and the U.S. Senate is undisputed.

WND columnist Jill Stanek has written about Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation clarifying the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth.

(Story continues below)

Wrote Stanek: “In 2001 and 2002, Obama was the lone senator speaking against Born Alive on the Senate floor. In 2003, Obama killed the bill altogether by burying it alive in a committee he chaired. …

“By the third time Obama tried to snuff Born Alive, he was running for the U.S. Senate. The federal version had passed the year before unanimously in the Senate and almost unanimously in the House. Even NARAL went neutral. Pro-aborts agreed to let it pass without a fight lest they appear extreme.

“Except Obama. He decided to battle alone further left than any other senator – Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.”

Concluded Gardner: “Unfortunately, Barack Obama supports the ruthless culture of death – one that includes killing the smallest Americans – too small to flee or fight back.”

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



For better or worse, Rezko stars in Obama production
John Kass

January 30, 2008

Can Tony Rezko — the indicted Illinois political fixer and Sen. Barack Obama’s personal real estate fairy and fundraiser — carry a tune?

Can Rezko really sing, loudly in a clear voice, in that orange federal jumpsuit he’s forced to wear, after a federal judge on Tuesday revoked his bond, figuring he’d run to Syria and skip out on his federal political corruption trial?

If Rezko can sing, there’s a starring role in a new musical I’m writing about politics and real estate called “Obama’s Lot.”

He’ll make a fortune if Obama becomes president. It’s sort of like “Camelot,” with magic and demons and unicorns and an evil enchantress.

Can’t you see Rezko now? He waltzes across a national stage, surrounded by a chorus of Illinois politicians.

They explain how Rezko helped the Obamas in the purchase of their nice home and that sumptuous lot next door.

“Obama’s Lot./ Obama’s Lot.

We know dat sounds a bit


But it’s Obama’s Lot! Obama’s Lot!/

Dat’s how conditions are.

“Mayor Daley made da law a distant moon ago here/

Barack can never, ever, ever be too hot/

And dere’s a legal limit tooda snow here/

On Obama’s Lot!”

I suppose I could have called it “Barack-a-lot” or “Obamalot,” but the Kennedys have put their paws all over the Camelot thing, and one issue between Obama and Rezko is that dream house he helped the Obamas purchase.

It does borrow somewhat from the Arthurian tale so dear to some political writers, liberals high on the moist Kennedy/Camelot myth, yet clear-headed enough to keep cutting Chicago’s Sam Giancana out of their propaganda.

But in a unique use of symbolism, “Obama’s Lot” involves a magical sword of power. The brave young Obama pulls it from the cornerstone of Chicago’s City Hall and wields it proudly before his superiors in the Illinois State Senate.

And, after a limited Washington engagement, he becomes president of the United States.

A Hillary Clinton type plays the sensual Morgan La Fay, who uses her husky voice as she’s constantly trying to wrest power from the brave Obama.

I’m not going to give it all away, but in my musical, Rezko walks behind Obama, part willowy magician, part jealous jester.

He’s constantly judging, winking broadly at the audience during Obama’s few bouts with temptation.

“Obama’s Lot” needs music, lyrics, stars and investors. And I thought Rezko was in desperate need of cash. That’s what he told U.S. District Court Judge Amy

St. Eve, who thought he didn’t have any money, until federal authorities found him with more than

$3 million.

So I’m thinking of a scene. Rezko’s in his bunk, staring at the ceiling, when he starts dreaming of happier times, and gets up, pacing his cell under a spotlight:

“The rain may never fall till after sundown/

That lot we bought together means so much/

The fence I put there will happily remind him/

That I love Barack a lot, or maybe it’s just a bunch.”

Naturally, he’ll have to stare wistfully out at the audience and make small, plaintive gestures with his hands, sort of like he did in real life Wednesday in St. Eve’s courtroom.

There, Rezko wore his jumpsuit. He smiled at his friends and family and made friendly little gestures, as if he were shooting, pulling a trigger, winking, his index finger and thumb hand-capping them with love.

But then St. Eve announced that though she thought Rezko was broke, she was surprised he’d gotten his hands on more than

$3 million.

And she thought he should stay locked up rather than have the chance to flee to Iraq or Syria or wherever federal prosecutors thought he’d run.

“When you look at the factors, his incentive to flee has never been greater,” said Assistant U.S. Atty. Reid Schar.

And St. Eve agreed.

“I find the government has met its burden,” she said. “I’m going to order that he remain detained.”

Rezko’s shoulders slumped and they led him away.

He’ll stay inside now for weeks, preparing for his scheduled Feb. 25 trial. The federal lockup is not a nice place.

Rezko once spent time raising campaign cash for his political buddies, hanging with Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Now he’ll hang with guys with blue tattoos on their faces.

So Rezko might even have time to study the words to another song in “Obama’s Lot.” You probably know the tune.

“If ever I would squeal on you/It shouldn’t be in autumn.

But it might just be in autumn/ as voters go to the polls.

I’m no rat in the springtime/ summer, winter or fall

But I don’t like being in here/

No, not at all.”


Platino Brillante
Mensajes: 18,715
Registrado: ‎06-01-2007


Castro, Hillary y Obama son lobos de la misma camada... Castro les dio su apoyo público, mas tarde les pasará la cuenta


Lone Star Times 2/11/2006 Matt Bramanti

Che Guevara, the chief executioner of Fidel Castro’s brutal revolution, was a bank robber, a cold-blooded murderer, an enthusiastic torturer and generally an evil, sociopathic beep. He’s quite literally the poster boy for everything wrong with socialism.

One of Che’s lauded diaries recalls the execution of a suspected counterrevolutionary:

“I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain…. His belongings were now mine.”

Kooky economic theories, class warfare and forced redistribution of wealth — it’s not just a Cuban phenomenon. The revolution has finally spread to the brand new Barack Obama office right here in the Bayou City.

If you were running a candidate’s local campaign office, what would you put on the wall? Old Glory? The Texas flag? Or maybe the banner of a hostile Communist police state?

Fox has the video.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


BY: Paul R. Hollrah
Watching Barack Hussein Obama work the crowds at public appearances might lead the non-thinking and the uninformed to believe that he is actually serious about limiting the power and influence of special interests and their lobbyists. Standing on the platform, surrounded on all sides by adoring sycophants, he rails at the lobbyists and the special interests who populate the halls of Congress and the executive branch.
“When I am elected President of the United States,” he intones, “the lobbyists and the special interests will no longer run Washington, DC. Power will be returned to the people!” And the crowds go crazy.
They spring to their feet, screaming and shouting, waving their placards in the air...placards that read “Public Employees for Obama” and “Classroom Teachers for Obama.” These are the toadies of AFSCME, AFT, and the NEA, three of the ten most powerful special interest lobbies in Washington, who, along with the trial lawyers and the anti-American billionaire George Soros, own the Democratic Party.
We are forced to wonder, if Obama were to stand on the platform and shout, “When I am elected President of the United States the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, and the public employees unions will no longer run Washington, DC. Power will be returned to the people,” would he actually escape the auditorium unscathed? Probably not.
Obama’s own website tells us that, in January 2006, he co-authored the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, with 41 Democratic co-sponsors.
The bill would have:
▪ Lengthened the waiting period from one to two years for members of Congress who seek to become lobbyists.
▪ Required immediate disclosure as soon as public servants enter negotiations to become lobbyists.
▪ Proposed the opening of conference committee meetings to the public.
▪ Required that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before they can be voted on by the Senate. ▪ Ended all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel.
All of these provisions were included in some form in the final bill passed in 2007. Most are mere “feel good” nonsense, disguised as real reform. For the Democrat sponsors, it must have reminded them of wetting their pants as children; it gave them a nice warm feeling while they were doing it, but it didn’t do any good in the long run.
For example, to require members of Congress to wait two years before becoming lobbyists is meaningless.
There is nothing to prevent a member from moving from Capitol Hill to a K Street law firm and going to work immediately at a huge salary. The ex-congressman need not register as a lobbyist in order to be effective as a high-priced client magnet for his new employer. And if a retiring member entered negotiations with a law firm or a lobbying firm, to whom would he disclose that information...Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, beep Durbin, or Jay Rockefeller, all of whom leak everything they know that might harm a retiring Republican?
Open conference committee meetings to the public? Of all the bad ideas ever floated, this is among the worst. It is in the conference committee, where members of both parties, from both houses of Congress, get together and hammer out the tough compromises that eventually become law. It is where the business of legislating gets really “down and dirty;” it is political “mud wrestling.”
Anyone who thinks that Congress will ever willingly expose such proceedings to public view is a fool.
Require that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before the Senate votes on them? Again, this is the kind of “feel good” idea that might be popular in a third or fourth grade civics class. It is the rare bill that does not run to hundreds of pages. Many, such as the annual appropriations bills, contain thousands of pages.
Obama, himself, does not read the bills before he votes on them, even though he has hard copy on his desk in front of him. So who does he expect to read the bills on the Internet?
And finally, Obama apparently thought it would be a good idea to prevent lobbyists from buying meals for senators. We presume that his intention was to prohibit a senator from actually sitting down with a lobbyist at an upscale Washington restaurant and discussing the pros and cons of legislation over a $25 steak and a $50 bottle of wine.
However, if that same senator held a campaign fundraiser in a private room of that same restaurant, where the price of admission was $2,000 per person and the fare was finger food and cheap white wine, and where the senator and his guests merely stood around and talked things over, that would be permitted.
Apparently, as Obama sees it, bad things happen when people sit down over a $40 or $50 meal, but it’s okay to contribute $2,000 to a senator’s reelection campaign...so long as the lobbyist and the senator are standing up while nibbling hors d’oeuvres and sipping Chablis.
Senator Obama’s best selling book is titled, The Audacity of Hope...high-sounding words for a man who is so audacious in his efforts to deceive.
Paul R. Hollrah is a freelance writer. He is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri - Columbia and a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Platino Brillante
Mensajes: 18,715
Registrado: ‎06-01-2007



There is quite a connection between Obama and the Industrial Areas Foundation, a radical organization located in Chicago (Obama’s turf) and the ideological heir of Saul Alinsky, a notorious revolutionary who dedicated his mail work (Rules for Rebels) to Satan.

Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky began his book Rules for Radicals:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

All you need to do is enter in Google first, “Obama”, then “IAF”. Check around and you will be surprised.

The radical Marxist, Saul Alinsky, was the mentor of both, Hillary and Obama and his book, “Rules for Radicals” is the bible for radicals as the “Mein Kampf ‘ was for the Nazis. As a matter of fact, Hillary based her graduation thesis on Alinsky’s works.

Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , spearheaded the fight of Pope John Paul II against the infiltration of the Church by the Marxists through the so called “Liberation Theology”, writing in “ Truth and Tolerance” of the fall of the Soviet Union stated clearly his stand on the “Liberation Theology”:

“...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”

For Alinsky and his disciples:

“ There are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world”

“ Whatever Obama’s concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

“ All this is in addition to Obama’s long-term membership in an exclusively African-American church, affiliated with the United Church of Christ, founded on the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist ideology that incorporates racist concepts.”

“ Based on his record, we could expect most of the following:

-More funding of Planned Parenthood.
-Socialist medicine including abortion, pills for teens, etc., for free!
-More explicit ------------- ed in high school. Eventually in junior high!!
-ACLU-type removal of evidences of America’s Christian heritage.
-Same ------------- marriage. Pressure put on more companies and churches either to stop opposing homosexuality, or to actively support or endorse it.
-Socialist equalizing of people’s incomes—or at least lots of little attempts to move things even more in that direction.
-Screws turned on home schools, Christian schools and private schools in general.
-Jihadists around the world will see his election as a green light to pick up their tempo. (This may be the least likely outcome of any on the list. But still fairly likely.)”
“ If that sounds extreme, consider that not only did Obama and Clinton oppose Alito—pretty much all the Dems did—but he also opposed Roberts and filibustered Alito. So even a mild judicial conservative, which is what Alito and Roberts are, is intolerable to Obama. He only wants judges who will continue the court-led deconstruction of American society!”

There is need for someone with the right skills and time to work on uncovering what is really behind Obama who, for all we know, might become President of the United States. At least our people have the right to know who they are voting for.

Note: Some quotes are from “Obama’s Politics of Collective Redemption” by: Kyle-Anne Shiver

Platino Brillante
Mensajes: 18,715
Registrado: ‎06-01-2007


Obama Has More Faith in the UN, Iran & Syria Than U.S. Soldiers in Iraq By Aaron Goldstein
Intellectual Conservative ^ | 16 February 2008 | Aaron Goldstein

Whatever reservations conservatives have about John McCain, it is impossible to imagine McCain willing to leave Iraq in the hands of the United Nations, Iran and Syria.

With his sweep of the Democratic primaries in the Potomac earlier this week, Barack Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now his to lose.

Besides his charisma, what has so attracted Democratic Party activists to Obama is his pledge to end the War in Iraq, a war he believes never should have been fought in the first place.

Well, hindsight is 20-20. But this then begs the question, how will Obama end the war in Iraq?

Obama, who has been oft criticized for lacking specifics, did deliver a major speech on Iraq on September 12, 2007, while campaigning in Clinton, Iowa (I kid you not). That speech serves as the foundation of his policy on Iraq.

Having read Obama’s policy concerning Iraq, I find myself troubled both by its premise and its prescription. It is titled, “Turning the Page in Iraq.” It would be more aptly named, “Turning our Back on Iraq.”

Obama’s prescription of withdrawal is predicated on the premise that the surge is not working and that the sole purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq’s leaders to reconcile. This is simply wrong.

The surge is actually rooted in six fundamental elements as spelled out by the Bush Administration. First, let the Iraqis lead. Second, help the Iraqis protect the population. Third, isolate extremists. Fourth, create space for political progress. Fifth, diversify political and economic efforts. Finally, situate the strategy in a regional approach.

Have all these elements been achieved in the space of one year? No. Have some of these elements been achieved and is Iraq a better place now for it? Yes.

Obama ignores the fact that there was an Iraqi-led initiative to ------------- Baghdad known as Operation Imposing Law. This operation led to a significant decline in violence by insurgents. Don’t get me wrong: Baghdad is still a dangerous place. But the streets are no longer deserted and Iraqis are again beginning to enjoy the café nightlife that was unthinkable a year ago.

The surge has helped to isolate extremists. There is no question the surge was a significant factor in the Mahdi Army declaring a six-month ceasefire last August (although one wonders what happens once the ceasefire expires on February 29th).

The surge has helped to create space for political progress. To be sure, watching the Iraqi Parliament work has been about as exasperating as eating Jello with chopsticks. But just this week, the Iraqi Parliament passed laws concerning a general amnesty for thousands of Iraqi prisoners and defining the powers of the provinces. Consequently, with respect to the latter piece of legislation, there will be provincial elections throughout Iraq on October 1, 2008 (save for the Kurdish region which has a well established government). Earlier this month, the Iraqi Parliament also passed a de-Baathification law which permits 38,000, mostly low-level, Baath Party members to work again for the Iraqi government.

Let’s be clear. The Iraqi Parliament has a long, long way to go. It still must, amongst other things, pass an oil revenue-sharing law as well as a measure to disarm the various Shiite and Sunni militias still operating throughout Iraq. This will not be easy. But the Iraqis are trying to resolve matters in a civil and democratic manner. Yet this is not good enough for Obama, who wants to throw the baby out with the Baath water so to speak.

If elected President, Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009. Only a residual force would remain. Obama argues that withdrawal is the best means to ensure the Iraqi government acts. According to “Turning The Page in Iraq,” “Drawing down our troop presence is the best way to finally apply real pressure on the Iraqi government to make the political accommodations necessary to heal the nation’s sectarian rifts, and to take on more responsibility for providing security to their people.”

So who fills the void in Iraq once U.S. troops are withdrawn? The United Nations, Iran and Syria would.

Obama proposes that the UN lead a Constitutional Convention. He dismisses the 2005 Iraqi Constitution as nothing more than “the product of a Kurdish-Shiite deal.” Well, this is largely because the Sunnis boycotted the process back then. Obama proposes the UN Constitutional Convention “would not adjourn until national reconciliation is reached and contentious questions such as federalism, oil revenue sharing, and de-Baathification are resolved.” Under those conditions, the UN could be in Iraq for, say, 100 years. One could also say it is reason enough not to give Obama four years in the White House.

But let’s get this straight. Obama has unlimited patience with the UN but less than a year into the surge his patience with U.S. troops is exhausted? Sure Obama states “our troops have performed brilliantly.” So what makes Obama think the UN will succeed where U.S. troops haven’t? Suppose UN facilities are targeted as the UN Headquarters was back in August 2003, killing 22 people including Sergio Vieira de Mello, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s special representative in Iraq. After a second bombing a month later, the UN withdrew from Iraq after the attack and has only maintained a small presence since. Would the UN end its Constitutional Convention if attacked again?

But let us assume for a moment that UN facilities are not attacked and they remain in Iraq. If Obama believes the presence of U.S. troops is a disincentive for the Iraqi Parliament to resolve matters, what makes Obama think a UN Constitutional Convention will hurry Iraqi lawmakers? The UN has had a peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since 1964. The Greek and Turkish Cypriots seem quite happy not to resolve their differences.

In addition to the UN Constitutional Convention, Obama also supports “a diplomatic surge.” This diplomatic surge would see Obama “press Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to stem the flow of foreign fighters, arms, and financial resources into Iraq.” Obama also pledges he will be “a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.” I am sure that Ahmadinejad and Asaad are thinking, “Obama’s going to stop us from meddling in Iraq. Oh yeah, you and what army? Oh, that’s right. There is no army because Obama withdrew it.” Obama might as well send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be his envoy for all the good it would do.

But like many liberal Democrats, Obama takes the “blame America” view of the world. “America’s standing has suffered,” said Obama, “Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don’t like.” Well, if the United States is so averse to talking to Iran why was it that Iran postponed meeting with the U.S. concerning Iraq, as did it on February 14th, without explanation? Iran also backed out of talks with the United States in December 2007. Yet, in Obama’s eyes, it is America’s reputation that is in tatters.

How much faith does Obama place in Ahmadinejad, who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map? How much confidence does Obama have in Iran, as it sent its Foreign Affairs Minister, Mohammed Mottaki, to attend the funeral of Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyah? This is the same Mughniyah who was one of the masterminds of the October 1983 bombing of the U.S. military barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. How much confidence does Obama have in Asaad not meddling in Iraqi affairs when Syria won’t stop meddling in the affairs of Lebanon?

There will come a day when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. But to do so under anything other than our own terms would render both the United States and Iraq weaker. Whatever reservations conservatives have about John McCain, it is impossible to imagine McCain willing to leave Iraq in the hands of the United Nations, Iran and Syria.

During a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on the night of his Potomac triumph, Obama declared, “John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning.” For that matter, John McCain won’t be able to say that Barack Obama wants to win the War in Iraq either.

Aaron Goldstein, a former member of the socialist New Democratic Party, writes poetry and has a chapbook titled Oysters and the Newborn Child: Melancholy and Dead Musicians.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005




El candidato presidencial demócrata, Barack Hussein Obama, nació en Honolulu, Hawaii, siendo su padre Barack Hussein Obama Sr., un musulmán de raza negra oriundo de Nyangoma-Kogel, en Kenya; mientras que su madre, Ann Dunham, era una atea blanca de Wichita Kansas.

Los padres de Obama se conocieron en la Universidad de Hawaii. Tenía dos años Obama cuando sus padres se divorciaron regresándose su padre a Kenya y su madre contraía nupcias con Lolo Soetoro, un musulmán radical de Indonesia. Cuando Obama tenía 6 años, su familia se trasladó a Indonesia ingresando Obama en una escuela musulmana en Jakarta. Obama también atendió allí en una escuela Católica donde fue inscripto como de religión musulmana.


El cuadro que los manipuladores de la prensa pintan es que Obama ingresa en el Islam por su padre y que su influencia fue temporal ya que su padre se regresó a Kenya inmediatamente después de su divorcio y jamás volvió a tener contacto ni influencia en la educación de Obama. ¿Cómo Obama Sr. iba a introducirlo en el Islam si sólo tenía su hijo 2 años cuando sus padres se divorciaron?

Obama oculta cuidadosamente su formación en el Islám apuntando que “que es cierto que fue musulmán, pero que atendió una escuela católica.” Es de notar que el musulmán que reniega de su fe y se convierte a otra religión, de acuerdo a la ley Islámica, es condenado a la pena de muerte.

Realmente fue su padrastro, Lolo Soetoro, el segundo esposo de la madre de Obama, (una blanca atea americana) fue quien hizo al niño Obama musulmán inscribiéndolo en una escuela Wahgi en Jakarta, una de las sectas más radicales del Islam.

Wahasbismo es el dogma más radical que siguen los terroristas musulmanes que están envueltos en el Jihad contra la civilización occidental.

Más tarde Obama atendió un colegio católico en Indonesia donde se registro como musulmán, siguiendo las leyes de ese país, y allí recibió la instrucción religiosa islámica, no la católica.

Por consideraciones políticas, y para poder aspirar a ocupar las más altas posiciones dentro del gobierno de Estados Unidos, Obama se hizo cristiano formando parte de la “UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST” para así tratar de encubrir su formación islámica, grave paso que según ya expuse, conlleva la pena de muerte.

Los que controlan la campaña de Obama tratan de hacerlo aparecer como un moderado y no como un radical marxista, como realmente es. Obama, al igual que Hillary fueron adoctrinados en el marxismo por Saul Alinsky, cuyo libro “Rules for Radicals” es considerado como la guía para conquistar el poder.
Tampoco recita Barack Hussein Obama el “Pledge of Alliance” ni muestra ninguna reverencia por nuestra bandera. Mientras otros ponen su mano sobre el corazón, Obama da su espalda a la bandera en actitud irrespetuosa.

Debemos mantenernos alerta ante el auge que esta experimentado su candidatura. La historia se repite con Obama, quien mediante el uso de una retórica demagógica muy hábilmente ejecutada, lleva a los Estados Unidos hacia un cuadro similar de manipulación de las masas como se vio en la Alemania con Hitler, en Italia con Mussolini, en Cuba con Castro, y en Venezuela con Chávez, donde los demagogos una vez en el poder se convierten en tiranos.

Los musulmanes han expresado su plan de destruir los Estados Unidos desde dentro. De extrema gravedad es que Obama promete dejarles el campo libre a los terroristas islámicos en el Medio Oriente al retirar las tropas de Irak tan pronto tome el poder. Con ello los terroristas controlarían el petróleo produciendo una tan grave hecatombe que colapsaría la economía mundial.

No en balde terroristas y comunistas abiertamente hacen campana por Obama y Hillary, cuyas políticas favorecen a los enemigos de los Estados Unidos y de la civilización Occidental

¡Que mejor forma que empezar por el tope mas alto poniendo uno de los suyos en la presidencia de Estados Unidos!!!


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Exclusive: Joseph Farah notes how thrilled American Stalinists are with Barack Obama

Posted: February 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah

Pity poor Hillary.

She worked so hard in New Left and Old Left causes in her youth only to be abandoned by the hard-line Communist Party establishment in favor of the fresh new face of Barack Hussein Obama, who seems to toe the party line without even trying – perhaps without even realizing he’s doing it.

There are few things more undeniable in life than that the Communist Party USA has a party line. It has been this way since the days of Josef Stalin. With Hillary Rodham Clinton having paid her dues years ago, working with all the right people and all the right causes (or should that be all the left people and all the left causes), she might have assumed the support of this small, but highly organized and disciplined group.

If so, her assumptions have been proven wrong.

The CPUSA is going all the way with Barack Hussein Obama.

How do I know?

Sometimes you have to read between the lines. But let this Google search of the CPUSA website make your research a little easier.

It shows the People’s Weekly World (it was the People’s Daily World in the good old days before the fall of the Soviet Union) pulling out all the stops for Obama. The little red rag can’t even disguise its giddiness about the junior senator from Illinois. A similar search on Hillary turns up respectful, but unenthusiastic coverage of her campaign.

So what’s the takeaway? What does this mean to real Americans – the hundreds of millions of us who don’t read the People’s Weekly World?

It means Obama is more radical, more revolutionary, more socialist, more Communist in his worldview than even Hillary.

I know. I know. It would seem nearly an impossible challenge. But that’s how this veteran Commie watcher sees it.

These guys don’t make rash decisions. They don’t jump on bandwagons. They make calculated and well-considered choices based on one thing – who comes closer to representing the highest ideals of the Communist Manifesto and Marxist-Leninism.

These are Stalinists, stuck in another era, unable to see the world as it really is because of their delusional pathology that leads them down the deadly, oppressive path of totalitarianism.

They looked hard into the faces of Hillary and Obama. They studied their records. They pored over their ------------- papers. And they – the U.S. version of the Politburo – determined Barack Obama is their man.

When the Communist Party gets behind a candidate, it’s not just words on a newspaper. The party dispatches apparatchiks to work hard for the candidate. It occurs to me we may very well have seen a couple of those workers of the world inside Obama’s Houston office – those ladies flying the Cuban flags emblazoned with images of Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

Think about this now.

Barack Obama is pummeling Hillary in the polls. He is cleaning her clock in the primaries and caucuses. He is leading John McCain in head-to-head matchups with the Republican standard bearer by 14 points!

This guy could actually become the president of the United States.

If he does, it won’t be like the Manchurian Candidate backing into the highest office in the land. If Barack Obama wins the White House, the Communists will have gotten their man the conventional way – through an actual election, working through the system.

There’s an old Chinese proverb: “May you live in interesting times.”

Some non-newsmen suggest it’s actually a curse.

Indeed, we are living in extraordinary times. While they may be good for journalists, I’m sure they are not good for the American way of life.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Platino Brillante
Mensajes: 18,715
Registrado: ‎06-01-2007

The Barack Obama Myth

The Barack Obama Myth

By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/6/2004

If the Democratic National Convention failed to produce a bounce for John Kerry, the same cannot be said of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s candidate for United States Senator from Illinois. While this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive. While Obama spoke of individual responsibility – such as stating that the government cannot teach kids to read, parents must – his ideology and voting record is quite different.

Obama is very liberal. Among his campaign contributors are George Soros, People for the American Way, pro-abortion groups and teacher’s unions. Soros got his money’s worth from Obama, who turned out redmeat antiwar quotations during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an October 2002 antiwar rally, he repeated the false “economy and war” canard of fanatical antiwar liberals. Obama said:

“I don’t oppose all wars…What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income...to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

When confronted with this quotation by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” Obama shrugged it off, not choosing to repeat its conspiracy theories. Russert uncharacteristically did not press the issue. But the quotation would seem to indicate Obama’s inclination to parrot the Michael Moore Left.

In fact, Obama has bristled at being referred to as a mainsteam Democrat. When he was accused by Black Commentator magazine as being co-opted by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Black Commentator believes the more moderate rhetoric of the DLC and Bill Clinton’s willingness to compromise with Republicans for political gain have harmed the party. It believes the DLC’s candidates are corrupted by corporations, and refers to conservative black politicians as “black stealth candidates,” which is how they characterized Obama.

Obama was so disturbed by this, he wrote a letter to Black Commentator stating:

“To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC…I don’t know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars…I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform…I spend much of my time with audiences trying to educate them on the dangers of both the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, and the rest of John Ashcroft’s assault on the Constitution…In the last three months alone, I passed and sent to Illinois governor’s desk 25 pieces of major progressive legislation, including groundbreaking laws mandating the videotaping of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases; racial profiling legislation; a new law designed to ease the burden on ex-offenders seeking employment; and a state earned income tax credit that will put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Illinois’ working poor.”

His voting record certainly displays the ideology characteristic of an indulgent liberal. (Sorry, “Progressive.”) Obama favors abortion, socialized medicine, and Affirmative Action. Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring local police departments in Illinois to record the race of anyone stopped for questioning so that the data can be used to track the occurrence of racial profiling. He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds. He opposed legislation making it a criminal offense for accused gang members to associate with known gang members.

Ironically, Obama is the candidate of the racial segregationist. It is not because segregationists want him to be a Senator. It is because he is classified African-American using the standards of racial segregationists.

Obama is called an African–American. However, Obama is half-white. His father, who was black, abandoned him and his mother when he was about two years old. He lived with his white mother and white grandparents.

Considering a mixed race individual an African-American is a typical liberal practice. They routinely refer to anyone who is partially black as black. Tiger Woods, Halle Berry and Mariah Carey are all mixed race celebrities regularly referred to by the liberal media as black. Tiger Woods has had the gall to complain about this. (With good reason; his mother is Asian.)

Ironically, this custom by liberals and Democrats of referring to partially black people as black is simply a reiteration of the old racist, Jim Crow, “one-eighth law.” In racist locales, such as segregation-era Louisiana, people with as little as one-eighth African-American ancestry were classified as black. This classification led to dramatic curtailments of freedom. In Missouri and Mississippi, “The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void.” Obama is black only by the standards of white segregationists.

By insisting that mixed-race individuals be considered black, Democrats — the party of the unreconstructed South — are displaying their segregationist roots.

Obama the candidate is conservative only when addressing a national television audience. Ironically, the oddball Black Commentator magazine is partially correct. Obama is a stealth candidate — a liberal stealth candidate.

A former police officer, Michael P. Tremoglie recently published his first novel, A Sense of Duty. His work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Human Events, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He has a Master of Science degree from Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia.