Obama's "Black Value System"

"...Obama's church bookstore:  I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific."

Source: American Thinker
Who Cares About Wright the Second Time Around?
By Karin McQuillan

 

When the videos of Obama's angry pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, hit voters' TV screens in March of 2008, Obama's favorable ratings plummeted. The number of Democrats saying he would be their nominee fell 20%. In a Rasmussen poll, a strong 56% of likely voters thought Obama shared some of Wright's views. Soon after, we were told the Wright story was over, that it was racist, and never to mention it again.

Democrats and mainstream media then and now insist that Obama's church is off-limits, while simultaneously attacking Mormonism. "If Mormons are such responsible people, why are voters turned off?" asks the New York Times, while TIME magazine piously intones, "Associating Obama with Wright's radical views raises the specter of racial stereotyping ... knowingly discounting his stated positions and making assumptions that may be influenced by his race."
It is less clear why Republicans continue to cave in to the Democrat pressure to shut up. The polling data at the time showed that Obama's closeness to the odious Rev. Wright went over very badly indeed with more than half of independents, precisely those voters essential to Romney's re-election.
Obama won in 2008 with 52% of independent voters. We will never know how many of those votes Obama would have lost if more voters had seen the Wright videos. Independents are not news junkies. Indeed, they are notorious for not paying attention to the news until just before the election. By the fall, there was a complete news blackout about Obama's black liberation theology church. McCain refused to run campaign ads to inform voters who missed the original story.
Outside conservative media, there was no in-depth reporting to provide details about Obama's openly Marxist church. Obama wrote in Dreams that he chose the church because of its political gospel, not because he was seeking religion. Yet most voters to this day do not know that Obama's church explains the world through a lens of white greed, teaches that America is fundamentally unfair, and promotes income redistribution. In 2012, the story of Obama's church would have a greater impact on the election, since these are -- no big surprise -- Obama's central campaign themes. It turns out that Wright was relevant. It would have been nice to know that before electing a son of this church to the presidency.
How much were voters affected by the Wright story in 2008, even with the paltry coverage it received? When the story broke in March, according to Pew, only 31% of Americans heard about Wright's sermons -- fewer had seen the videos. There was hardly any news coverage until three months later, when Obama's speech repudiating Wright was covered by the mainstream media. Even then, less than half the citizens polled saw the videos of Wright damning America. Immediately after the speech, Republicans ceded an unearned victory to Obama and dropped the story.
The videos were powerful. Among Americans polled, 52% of independents and 43% of Democrats reported themselves offended. Thirty-five percent of Americans polled said their opinion of candidate Barack Obama grew less favorable.
In May of 2008, Obama recognized that his loyalty to Wright was a threat to his chances for election. In a well-covered story, Obama at last repudiated his pastor. Rasmussen's polling showed that only 40% of likely voters saw the repudiation as genuine. That week, McCain broke his tie with Obama and took a lead in the polls.
Yet then and now, Republican "experts" tell us that talking about Obama's black liberation church will damage Republicans more than Obama. What is their evidence? To say that voters care more about the economy is true. To say that Romney himself should stay positive and focus on the economy makes sense. But none of us lives by bread alone.
When voters are questioned about issues, the economy dominates. Yet voters also choose a president based on his perceived leadership qualities and character. A recent Real Clear Politics article by David Kuhn is entitled "Presidential Campaigns Always Concern Character." He writes:

In springtime 2007, the Gallup organization asked Americans to delineate the most important quality they sought in a presidential candidate. One-third of the public said honest and straightforward. Leadership ranked second. Tied for third: integrity and the ability to govern. Gallup went on to ask what qualities were "essential" in a presidential candidate. The top three: strong and decisive leader (78 percent), good moral character (68 percent) and an effective manager (63 percent).

Obama won because voters liked what they saw. They didn't see the videos of Reverend Wright damning America and being cheered by Obama's fellow congregants the Sunday after 9/11. Progressives who share Obama's apology worldview don't care. They agree with Rev. Wright that 9/11 was America's fault because we protect Israel and because we are an evil imperialist power.
But most of us remember our feelings the week of 9/11 vividly. We will never forget the images of the World Trade Towers, the national sorrow and grief, our anger at the terrorists and our gratitude to Giuliani and Bush for their leadership at that moment.
Liberal secularists who never set foot in a church don't get it. Most Americans attend church regularly, and they do get it. They've heard their minister, priest, or rabbi say things that they don't agree with -- that's normal. But to stay in a church where the pastor led the congregation to cheer 9/11? Few Americans would remain in such a congregation. Obama did. In 2008, the Democrat mainstream media argued that Obama was a centrist and surely did not share these offensive progressive views.
In 2012, the excuses would be a harder case to make, given Obama's apology tours abroad, his repudiation of America's moral stature on the world stage, his bowing to the hate-exporting Saudi princes, his handing over the Middle East to the jihadi Muslim Brothers. In 2012, we can see that indeed, Trinity was Obama's true church.
Blaming America as racist and imperialist is only half the agenda of Obama's church. The other half is their vision for the future. Voters still have not heard Obama asked uncomfortable questions by the press about why he chose to attend for two decades -- almost his whole adult life -- a black liberation theology church whose congregants are asked to sign on to a value statement that explicitly condemns "middleclassness." They have not heard descriptions of the church he sat in:

Among some of the Black Nationalist signs hanging in this church are a list of admonishments to black solidarity, called the "Black Value System," and a sort of moral code calling for the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness."

How comfortable would the average voter be that their president cherished a preacher who talked of white greed as a credo, was openly Marxist, and lionized the racist anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan? Would they feel comfortable that Obama's church bookstore carries as many political books as religious ones, "books glorifying violence and black supremacy racism"? Kyle-Anne Shiver reported on her visit to Obama's church in an article in American Thinker, but no mainstream reporters picked up on the story:

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale: Christianity.
Not so in Obama's church bookstore.
I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.
And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.
Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

The public never heard Obama asked a single awkward question about why his chosen mentor and advisor, the Rev. Wright, went with Farrakhan to Libya to fawn over Moammar Gaddafi, the monster who had bombed Pan Am 103. They never heard any interviewer ask Obama how he could feel close to such a pastor.
According to the Pew Forum, 50% of the campaign stories that covered religion in the 2008 election were about Romney (as primary candidate) being a Mormon. Only one half of one percent were about presidential candidate Obama's black liberation theology.
One half of one percent. And then the journalists and the pundits and the campaign advisors tell us the public doesn't care about Obama's church. The public never got a chance to show whether they care or not. They never got a chance to learn in any detail about Obama's religion of resentment and envy, until it was too late.
Voters liked Obama in 2008 because he promised us he'd be a leader on race, a black president who would put hate and resentment and the past scars behind, and recognize that white America is no longer racist. He promised us that his character was bigger and better than that of those loser black politicians who stoke racial resentment and push payback agendas. Obama's core appeal as a candidate -- then and now -- is based on his being the opposite of his chosen mentor and cherished advisor, the angry Rev. Wright. No wonder that learning about Wright and how Obama cherished him was devastating to Obama's appeal. The one week the videos were aired, his approval ratings dropped 20%.
Tell me again why the New York Times can run stories such as "There Is a Dark Side to Mormonism" on Romney's faith, but we mustn't talk at all about Obama's chosen creed of black liberation theology.
It is now four years since the Wright videos surfaced. It is no longer a hypothetical whether or not Obama meant it when he said the Marxist Rev. Wright was his mentor and guide. Voters can easily see the connection between Obama's politics of envy and resentment and his church of 20 years. Obama's record and his current campaign show that he is a loyal son of Wright's church.
It is all too easy to see what a suave Ivy School version of black liberation theology looks like in the White House. It looks like a ruined middle class; a massive entitlement government; and a lot of attacks on rich, successful white men. In Rush's brilliant formulation, Obama is running against capitalism. Let's make sure every voter in swing states sees those Wright videos connected to Obama's campaign talking points, so that can make up their own minds if Obama ever left Wright's church. It is hard to trust Obama or feel he is that likable after you see the connection. That is why Obama's church matters.

Obama and Hillary Climbing Into Bed With The United Nations

The following

Cross-posted from: Plymouth Rock/Cape Cod and the Islands TEA Party Patriots

Laws, Loyalty and Lies – A Soldier, President Clinton and the United Nations
Posted by Paul Cooper 

Should a member of the United States military be forced to wear a United Nations emblem or patch on their uniform?
When Bill Clinton was president back in the 1990s, I knew a man who was fiercely loyal to the United States. He was an Air Force officer with an exemplary record serving his county. At the time I knew him, he had been in the Air Force for just over 18 years, held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and was looking forward to retiring in less than two years.
All that changed one day when he received orders that his squadron was being deployed under a UN action. Included in his orders were the instructions to replace his United States insignia with one belonging to the United Nations. Tom refused to wear the UN patch, stating that he had sworn allegiance to the US and not the UN. He was informed that if he refused, he would be court martialed and receive a dishonorable discharge. With less than two years to go for retirement, he felt he had no choice but to resign his commission and leave the Air Force.
A similar thing happened to US Army Specialist Michael G New who served as a medic in the Third Infantry Division. Again, when Clinton was president, the Third Infantry Division was ordered to prepare for deployment to Macedonia as part of the United Nations’ action. New and the rest of his division were ordered to wear United Nations patches and insignias on their helmets.
New, like my friend Tom, said that he had sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution and not that of any other country or entity. When he refused to wear the UN insignia, he was charged with disobeying orders and mustered out of the Army with a Bad Conduct Discharge.
All through his trial and subsequent appeals, New and his attorneys argued that to place US military forces under the command of a foreign power without the permission of Congress was illegal. The prosecution used a copy of an executive order to justify the deployment and convict New. The defense demanded to see a fully unedited copy of the executive order, Presidential Decision Directive 25, but was told that the 10 page copy they had was the entire document.
That Presidential Decision Directive 25 has now been declassified and New and his attorneys have obtained a copy and found it to be 30 pages long, not 10 pages as the prosecution had asserted. Contained in the other 20 pages was information that revealed that the deployment of US troops under UN authority and leadership was in fact illegal in the way Clinton went about it.
With the new information at hand, New and his attorneys are filing a new appeal and hope to completely exonerate him and clear his Bad Conduct Discharge that has plagued him for over 15 years.
My question to all of you is this: should US military personnel be forced to wear the Insignia of the United Nations or any other power instead of the US insignia and should they be forced to swear allegiance to the United Nations or any other foreign power?
The way President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have climbed into bed with the United Nations, I can see a repeat of what took place under Bill Clinton’s regime.
The best way to stop this from happening again would be to expel the entire United Nations off of American soil and withdraw our membership from the organization that is striving so hard to form the one world government. If we did this, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars since the US pays more to the UN than anyone else does. It would also rid our nation of many of the spies that operate under the guise of UN diplomats.
By no longer belonging to the United Nations it would also mean that anti-American liberals like Obama and Hillary Clinton would no longer be able to try to place the United States and its citizens under UN law. The US Constitution is sufficient for America and we do not need or want UN laws or treaties to overrule our own laws.
Then US service men and woman will be allowed to wear the US flag and any other appropriate identifications on their uniforms without fear of having to ruin or end their careers protecting you and me.

For comments on this article go here: http://plymouthrocktp.ning.com/profiles/blogs/laws-loyalty-and-lies-a-soldier-president-clinton-and-the-united?xg_source=activity

2nd Amendment News

Source: NRA-ILA + see important video below

Tester-Moran Amendment to Block Use of Taxpayer Money to Lobby for UN Gun Ban Passes by Voice Vote

As we reported last week, every gun owner concerned about the future of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms should be aware that the United Nations and the global gun eradication movement are attempting to eliminate our Second Amendment freedoms by drafting a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty would cover tanks, helicopters, and other heavy weapons but could also include civilian rifles, shotguns and handguns. The treaty's language will be finalized by the U.N. this July during a four week conference.

In an attempt to thwart this serious threat to our sovereign rights and freedoms, earlier this year, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) introduced S. 2205--the "Second Amendment Sovereignty Act." S. 2205 would prohibit the Administration from using "the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials."

This week, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2013 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, Senator Moran took additional steps to safeguard our rights and joined Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) in offering an amendment to protect the rights of American gun owners from being undermined by the proposed ATT. We're pleased to announce that the amendment passed by a voice vote.

The amendment will block any taxpayer dollars from being used to advocate or agree to any provision that would restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or that would otherwise regulate the domestic manufacture, importation, assembly, possession, use, transfer or purchase of firearms, ammunition or related items.

"The United Nations must be prevented from interfering with our constitutional freedoms. Equally important, American taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for the U.N.’s efforts to restrict our Right to Keep and Bear Arms," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "The NRA would like to thank Senator Tester and Senator Moran for their leadership in offering this amendment to protect American freedom."

A similar amendment, offered by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), was adopted by the House Committee on Appropriations in the Fiscal Year 2013 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs last Thursday by a bipartisan vote of 30-20.

Ignoring your coming fate will not make it go away

“Once Cassandra had been cursed by Apollo to prophesy the truth but never be believed, Troy was doomed. Countless times before and during the Trojan War Cassandra predicted what would come of the war, but no one believed her. Always it was Cassandra who recognized a face, who predicted a fateful occurrence, who ran around the ramparts of the city with her hair flying around her shoulders, crying and spouting oracles that no one understood. Most people considered her insane and tried to subdue her, but she was only trying desperately to warn her people of impending disaster.”From Cassandra’s Prophesies For Troy

“From Cassandra to Jesus Christ, it is amazing how often the doomed choose to ignore those who warn them of their coming fate.”

Now I don’t know where the above quote originated but it has been used often enough to emphasize a point and as no-one believed Cassandra (cursed by Apollo) it appears the doomed continue to ignore those of us who warn you of your coming fate.  And it’s coming!
I don’t remember what year it was that I familiarized myself with the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) but since that time I have taken on the role of Cassandra for I have warned all of you and no-one believes me…at least you have acted in disbelief  because the demise of America is close at hand and you have done nothing (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  ~ Edmund Burke).

Back in June of 2007 Secretary of State George Schultz sent a letter to Senator Lugar emphasizing the ratification of LOST under false pretenses. 

Dear Senator Lugar,

I understand that the Law of the Sea Treaty is once again likely to be considered by the Senate for consent to ratification. I am writing to let you know that I support ratification.

I have had a long history with this treaty. When I was Secretary of the Treasury in 1973, we got wind of this negotiation and discovered the language on control of mining in the deep sea-beds. We blew every whistle we could find to call attention to the undesirable features of what was being negotiated. Nevertheless, negotiations continued.

The question of ratification arose once again during the Reagan Administration. President Reagan, fully aware of the many desirable aspects of the treaty, nevertheless opposed ratification, fundamentally on the same grounds that led us to blow the whistle in the early 1970s.

The treaty has been changed in such a way with respect to the deep sea-beds that it is now acceptable, in my judgement. Under these circumstances, and given the many desirable aspects of the treaty on other grounds, I believe it is time to proceed with ratification.

It surprises me to learn that opponents of the treaty are invoking President Reagan's name, arguing that he would have opposed ratification despite having succeeded on the deep sea-bed issue. During his administration, with full clearance and support from President Reagan, we made it very clear that we would support ratification if our position on the sea-bed issue were accepted.

With my respect and adminstration for the sustained high quality of your public service.

Sincerely yours,  George P. Shultz

The language Shultz uses appeals to the un-informed Reagan fans but fails to mention the ultimate goal of the treaty and that is ultimate control of the United States by the most corrupt organization ever devised by man; the United Nations! I should also mention that ratification was supported by President Bush, and that he supported legislation that would pass aspects of LOST thus hiding it from the American people.  Obama did likewise within just a few weeks of occupying the White House by supporting changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) under the guise of protecting our drinking water but in reality taking control of thousands of miles of privately owned water front property. 

A few years ago the subject was hot but not hot enough for the main stream media (MSM) who openly distorts news so as not to inform the general public of their impending doom…not hardly a mention of LOST was published nor broadcast by the MSM the last time ratification came up in the United States Senate.  And they are noticeably quiet again!  If it were not for people like Dick Morris to remind us we could be headed into the UN’s abyss under the Obama régime.  Here’s a link to Morris’ latest warning, Law Of The Sea Treaty Hearings Today! Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert! ~ Norman E. Hooben

See also: Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) the worst treat in the history of mankind!

Previous notes and/or posted warnings from yours truly…

SUBSECTION G. LEGAL STATUS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES (Law of the Sea Treaty)
Article 176

Legal status

The Authority shall have international legal personality and such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.
Article 177

Privileges and immunities

To enable the Authority to exercise its functions, it shall enjoy in the territory of each State Party the privileges and immunities set forth in this subsection.  The privileges and immunities relating to the Enterprise shall be those set forth in Annex IV, article 13.

Article 178

Immunity from legal process

The Authority, its property and assets, shall enjoy immunity from legal process except to the extent that the Authority expressly waives this immunity in a particular case.

Article 179
Immunity from search and any form of seizure

The property and assets of the Authority, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure by executive or legislative action.

Article 180
Exemption from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria The property and assets of the Authority shall be exempt from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

Article 181

Archives and official communications of the Authority

1. The archives of the Authority, wherever located, shall be inviolable.

2. Proprietary data, industrial secrets or similar information and personnel records shall not be placed in archives which are open to public inspection.
3. With regard to its official communications, the Authority shall be accorded by each State Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded by that State to other international organizations.

Article 182

Privileges and immunities of certain persons connected with the Authority

Representatives of States Parties attending meetings of the Assembly, the Council or organs of the Assembly or the Council, and the Secretary-General and staff of the Authority, shall enjoy in the territory of each State Party:

(a) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in the exercise of their functions, except to the extent that the State which they represent or the Authority, as appropriate, expressly waives this immunity in a particular case;
(b) if they are not nationals of that State Party, the same exemptions from immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements and national service obligations, the same facilities as regards exchange restrictions and the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities as are accorded by that State to the representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank of other States Parties.
Article 183
Exemption from taxes and customs duties
1. Within the scope of its official activities, the Authority, its assets and property, its income, and its operations and transactions, authorized by this Convention, shall be exempt from all direct taxation and goods imported or exported for its official use shall be exempt from all customs duties. The Authority shall not claim exemption from taxes which are no more than charges for services rendered.
2. When purchases of goods or services of substantial value necessary for the official activities of the Authority are made by or on behalf of the Authority, and when the price of such goods or services includes taxes or duties, appropriate measures shall, to the extent practicable, be taken by States Parties to grant exemption from such taxes or duties or provide for their reimbursement. Goods imported or purchased under an exemption provided for in this article shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of in the territory of the State Party which granted the exemption, except under conditions agreed with that State Party.
3. No tax shall be levied by States Parties on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid or any other form of payment made by the Authority to the Secretary-General and staff of the Authority, as well as experts performing missions for the Authority, who are not their nationals.

Kenya spell Hawaii? ...and, Are we a big D or small d?

Who Is Barack Obama? The Question that Won’t Go Away

by Roger Kimball @ PJMedia 

So now Chris Matthews isn’t the only one experiencing a little thrill when he thinks about Barack (omit middle name) Obama. The recent revelation that from the early 1990s until the day before yesterday—or, to be more accurate, until Obama made his decision to run for president—a biographical pamphlet circulated by his literary agents described him as having been “born in Kenya” has been setting the world of Twitter atwitter.
What should we think about that? An agency spokesman who claims to have been responsible for the “born in Kenya” wheeze has publicly said that it was a mistake, a typographical error, a slip of the pen that just went “unchecked” for, um, sixteen-seventeen years. I can understand that. She meant to write “Hawaii” and wrote “Kenya” instead. Could happen to anyone. They look and sound enough alike, don’t they, that no one noticed. You meant to write “there” and you wrote “their” instead. You meant to write “cup” and you wrote “floccinaucinihilipilification” instead. No one—no one at the literary agency, not the author himself—could be expected to notice. You understand that, right?
Well, maybe that is an unprofitable line of inquiry. However it happened, the take-away here is not that Obama was really born in Kenya. As my friend Roger Simon points out in “The Mystery of the Kenyan Birth,” the noteworthy thing is that it is one more puff in the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the president.
It’s been pretty foggy in those precincts for some time. During the 2008 campaign, many of us asked the question: “Who is Barack Obama?” It wasn’t a question that Obama’s official PR firms—The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc.–were interested in, no sirree, but it was a question that some of us pajamas-wearing-bitter-enders asked ourselves when we weren’t snake handling or nuzzling our firearms.
It’s a question that has recurred as more and more pieces of the Obama jigsaw puzzle have worked their way loose and exposed little gaps or fissures in the story. The most recent one concerned Ms. Composite, the girlfriend who didn’t exactly exist. But there have been other revelations, or, rather, revelations of non-revelation. Turns out the book filed under “Autobiography” ought to have been filed under “Teen Fantasy,” “Mystery,” or some other rubric in the fiction section.
Since 2008, the meticulous Stanley Kurtz has patiently been sifting through what materials are publicly available to answer the question Who Is Barack Obama? His book Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism is essential reading for anyone the least bit curious about the political history and ideological commitments of the most powerful man in the world.
But not everyone shares Mr. Kurtz’s curiosity. At the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle observes than human beings are by nature curious animals: they ask questions and want to know the truth about the world around them. But not all men. One of the great oddnesses of the 2008 campaign was the code of omerta enforced by the the legacy media about anything having to do with Obama’s past. Where was he born? Don’t know, don’t care. What were his college years like? Can’t you move on to something important, like the time Mitt Romney ragged some hippie in high school? Why did Obama say that former Weatherman Bill Ayers was “just a guy in the neighborhood” when he was plainly an important political mentor, if not also the ghostwriter, for the future president?
And on and on and on. There are a lot of questions to be asked about Barack Obama. Why are his college records sealed? Why can’t we see a certified copy of his birth certificate? Why are his medical records sealed? I’ve been told that his Social Security registration was issued by Connecticut, which would be odd, but cannot check because that too is sealed. Obama worked as a lawyer, but we don’t know who he worked for because his client list is sealed. Why is it that Michelle Obama can no longer practice as an attorney? We know the fact but not the reason.
As I say, last time around, general infatuation guaranteed that Obama got more or less a free pass from the legacy media. I suspect there will be much more curiosity as the summer progresses and we get into the campaign. For one thing, the nimbus of inviolability around Obama has been seriously breached. He is no longer the pristine knight come to lower the oceans, fix the economy, and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America into a green paradise where everyone suckles happily at the federal mammary gland except the evil coal producers who are miserable bankrupts. No, I suspect that even The Washington Post, even The New York Times, will have to take a peek or two under the covers of the tale of this international man of mystery.

They’ll more or less have to. Alternative sources of information are much more potent now than they were in 2008. It matters not if The New York Times closes ranks and buries a story. There are too many other instruments of disinterment. The news will out. And the more people know about Barack Obama, the more, I predict, they will wonder how this man became president of the United States. As a first, preliminary spur to curiosity, I share the following image just sent to me by a friend.

The following added by Storm'n Norm'n

Newspaper clipping showing Communist Party indorsement when Obama ran for Illinois state senator:

Although the United States is sometimes (perhaps most times) referred to as a Democracy the word democracy does not appear anywhere in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution... nor for that matter, in any of the individual states' constitutions!

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule,where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." ~ Thomas Jefferson

The United States was intended to be a republic and for the most part it remained a republic until the so-called progressives (Democrats) began using the word democracy in their speeches sometime during the 1930's.  They also saw democracy as a means of political power...that is, power for the politicians, not power for the people...and that is why Democrats incorporate the word democracy in their name, it fools the people into a false sense of security.   All one has to do is look at the history of Democrats in elected office; more power for the Democrats and less freedom for the people...it happens in every election!
Before I go let me add this: (from International Society For Individual Liberty)

America's founders were well aware of the evils of pure democracy, and wisely made the United States a limited constitutional republic in which individual rights were strongly protected.

The word democracy does not appear either in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. Instead, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

The difference between a Constitutional republic and a democracy is the difference between liberty and slavery. As Ira Glasser, former Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, explains:

"Even in a democracy the majority must be limited in order to guarantee individual rights and personal autonomy."
"If whites have more votes than blacks, they cannot be allowed to deny blacks their constitutional rights. If men have more political power than women, that cannot permit them to deny women certain individual rights. Winning an election should not permit the victors to assemble their votes and enact laws or govern in a way that strips those who lose of their liberty."

_______________________________________

The following from Citizen Pamphleteer

Small "d" Democracy vs. Big "D" Democracy

by Bart DePalma Saturday, February 19, 2011

Between 2007 and 2010, the Congress was ruled by Big "D" Democratic Party rule where the budget and legislation was written in secret by the Democrat Party leadership; secret earmarks for spending on pet projects were inserted without debate, but the minority party was forbidden to offer amendments; votes on legislation were held on short notice without reading the bills; government spending soared to 25% of GDP and massive new powers over Americans' lives were granted to an unelected bureaucracy. This process more closely resembled the Soviet Politboro sending secret measures to the Supreme Soviet to be rubber stamped than any form of democracy Madison and the founders ever conceived.

Over the past week, the House of Representatives returned to open and unruly small "d" democracy where all representatives of either party were able to offer and debate over 200 amendments to reform the massive 2011 budget. Even the GOP leadership's pet projects were fair game as an unusual alliance of left Democrats and newly elected Tea Party Republicans created a majority vote to eliminate an alternative engine program for the F-35 fighter, made partially in Speaker John Boehner's district. In another case, the GOP center aligned with the Democrats to limit spending cuts to $61 billion rather than the $100 billion the Tea Party members were calling for. And all of this unruly democracy was conducted in the light of day in full sight of the American people.

Maybe there is hope for the Land of the Free after all.