Deficit spending means a debt owed to someone, whether it is owed to a foreign entity or to ourselves. Money borrowed must be repaid. Selling trillions of dollars in Treasury bonds to China or to anyone else means we are borrowing with the understanding that we will repay the debt. Ultimately, if the spending becomes too reckless, our lenders will begin to seriously question our ability to pay, and to express concern over the falling dollar with which they will be repaid. After all, what good is being repaid on a debt when what you are being repaid with is essentially worthless? Where Obamanomics is such a radical departure from Keynsianism is the size of the deficit – it is virtually inconceivable that it will ever be paid back. The rhetoric coming from the president and his administration that such spending and deficits are “unsustainable” and ”unacceptable” ignores the fact that they continue to spend and increase the deficit with even more programs and projects, all the while declaring that this is the most certain path to full recovery and “sustainable job growth,” etc., etc… It is all utter nonsense.

To be fair to Mr. Obama, those who blame him in full or in part for creating the “Obama Recession” are as foolhardy as their counterparts who blame Mr. Bush. One must also understand that had Mr. McCain been the current occupant of the White House, the situation would be very much the same because of the prevailing mentality among the political elite that only government is big enough to solve such dire economic problems. And, while the actions taken by both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama have certainly contributed the worsening of the situation over the long term, neither one bears full blame for its cause. They do, however, deserve blame for failing to clearly see the best path toward a solution, which is letting the natural laws of economics and human nature work instead of propping up a bubble with fiat money and regulations aimed at benefiting the politically well-connected to the detriment of everyone else. Bad regulations and monetary policy brought us to this place, and more of the same is quite obviously not going to help. Whether the entities favored by the proposed new regulations and legislation are big Democrat donors or big Republican donors is immaterial. Those with money and access to power will benefit to the detriment of the rest of us, no matter how flowery the language of “hope” and “change.”

According to the AFP, Mr. Obama “stressed that the actions taken by his government had ‘helped to stem what could have been a disastrous situation for the economy,’ adding that ‘we are starting to see stabilization and indeed some improvement.’” Accordingly, one might be inclined to argue that ballooning the national debt to $12 trillion, and attempting to force passage of a national healthcare bill along with a Cap-and Trade tax bill piled atop of unfounded – and unfundable - government obligations already at $106 trillion is the actual disaster. Indeed, the vast majority of the blame for that unfundable debt of $106 trillion does not belong with Mr. Obama but, rather, with his predecessors going back to President Johnson. Regardless of who gets the blame, however, is the sad reality that the figure of $106 trillion is proof that these government obligations are inconceivable to the rational mind, and adding the current U.S. national debt of $12 trillion to this figure simply makes the further point that the government itself is insolvent, because even if every man, woman and child in this country were taxed at 100% for a decade, that amount could never be paid off. Hence, Mr. Obama defers to Mr. Bernanke’s strategy of monetizing the debt and massively inflating our currency in doing so – the epitome of Keynesian theory. Sure, the Treasury will be able to pay off the numerical figure of its’ trillions in debt bonds with “dollars” created out of thin air, but those dollars won’t be worth anything by the time that happens. Massive inflation only benefits the party who has to pay the debt. Everyone else suffers.  (Continued...)

President Obama once again demonstrated his utter lack of understanding of the basic principles of economics during a meeting with his economic advisors on Monday. He chooses to blindly follow the misguided and discredited theories of Lord Keynes, among others, given him by his advisors. It is also most unfortunate for this country that the entire cadre of the presidents economic advisory team seem incapable of objectively analyzing the Keynesian model that they are so attached to, for if they could only extricate themselves from this “third way” paradigm and experience a few moments of economic lucidity, it is highly possible that even they could begin to fully understand just how utterly disastrous Keynesianism has been for the global economy in general, and our economy in particular. Unfortunately, they ignore the continued warning signs that keep popping up and continue to dig the United States ever deeper into this economic black hole that threatens to suck the very life out of what remains of our economy, and will ultimately take what remains of our liberty with it.

Let me be clear: what we are presently witnessing in the ongoing economic crisis is the natural laws of economics giving their referendum on Keynes. The current national unemployment figure of 10.2% simply underscores the point. In short, Keynesian theory suggested what has been called a “third way,” not fully capitalism and not fully socialism. It sought a system where the government, both through the power of the central bank and intervention through regulation, legislation and manipulation would be able to bring about a condition of perpetual prosperity, an end to recessions and economic cycles of boom and bust, and end to the bubble economy. The problem with the theory is that the very controls and manipulations demanded by Keynesians to “grow” and “sustain” the economy are the very things responsible for the creation of the economic bubbles and the business cycle, precisely because these things violate the natural laws of economics. Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and others have proven this time and again. The natural laws of economics correlate with human thought and action, and these things are wholly incompatible with bureaucratized central planning boards and central banks fixing prices, wages and interests rates at values much different than those the free market would deem proper. Attempting to isolate these things from the reality of the marketplace in essence creates the bubbles that are bound to burst at some point because they are at odds with the market, with the decisions and choices producers and consumers make on a daily basis.

Keynesian theory has been the driving force behind the economic policies of the industrialized world since the early twentieth century. Keynes’ model economy was viewed as having evolved beyond capitalism, thus noted above as being a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. It advocates corporatism. It is therefore by its own admission decidedly not capitalism. Those who prefer to cast the blame for the current economic mess on unrestrained capitalism are flat out wrong and woefully uninformed, because there has been no unrestrained capitalism in the United States – ever. Sure, we came fairly close up until 1913; however, once the Federal Reserve Act and Income Tax Acts were passed and the Constitution amended through the ratification of the 16th Amendment, all hopes for true capitalism were indeed dashed.

Mr. Obama and his advisors like to remind us how they inherited this economic crisis from the previous administration. There is nothing untrue in that statement. However, for anyone, especially a well trained and educated economist, to lay the whole blame for this mess at the feet of the Bush Administration without taking into account the overwhelming number of far more important factors that are truly the root cause, is disingenuous, dishonest, and grossly insulting to those of us who have studied anything other than Keynes, as well as an affront to the common sense of anyone who takes the time to question the current scenario and really think it through. Those economists who regurgitate the official government talking points and try to put a positive spin on the current course of action undermine their own legitimacy in doing so. It is simply incredible that so many of these economic advisors are so quick to declare unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism the root cause of this crisis when they know full well that the prevailing Keynesian school of economic thought that has been driving economic policy for the better part of a century is itself specifically defined as being something that is not capitalism. There is far too much at stake to play semantics and talk out of both sides one’s mouth.  (Continued...)

As the war in Afghanistan enters into its eighth year with the situation on the ground rapidly deteriorating and Osama bin Laden nowhere to be found; with a naïve new president doubtless being pulled in several different directions by the various powerbrokers that be hesitant to make a decision regarding the direction and, indeed the ultimate aim of the war; with the global economy in shambles and the dollar on the verge of collapse, the current dire state of affairs begs the question: why? Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why have we not yet won? How could it be that we have not, after eight long years of war, captured bin Laden? These are among the many questions asked over the last several years, however the most important question – one that some of us have not been afraid to ask is this: are we even fighting to win?

To be sure, this question of whether we are fighting to win is directed at the politicians, the bureaucrats, the Pentagon, and the White House – all the political elite. It goes without saying that the men and women in harms way are fighting to win every single day, because for them winning means survival: the scope of the bigger mission becomes very narrow for a handful of soldiers coming under fire and their focus quickly becomes keeping each other alive. The problem is that these men and women are largely being used as pawns, having long ago been abandoned by the same politicians who continually demand and push for war amid flag-waving and pomp, tough talking speeches that result in the death and maiming of countless victims on both sides. These scoundrels are all too quick to pull the trigger and flex the military might of the United States to impose its will or right some perceived wrong somewhere in the world, but once engaged they quickly lose heart and deny the military the very things they need for victory, condemning the troops to multiple tours and suffering a deadly slug-fest that these politicians soon enough are afraid to win, because of the cost they never bothered to calculate at the outset.  (More...)

In a speech aimed at further demonizing Wall Street by once again failing to accept that government also bears responsibility for the much of the ongoing financial meltdown, President Obama declared, “I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea.”

It is one thing to utter such words in a speech, and yet something entirely different to put them into action; and to date, all of Mr. Obama’s actions relative to the economy have been wholly manipulative and hostile to the idea of free market capitalism. To be fair, Mr. Obama is certainly not alone in his hostility toward true free market capitalism, for since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 U.S. economic and monetary policy have been overwhelmingly interventionist and inflationary, building an faux economy with a fragile basis in easy money, easy credit, fiat currency.  (continued... examiner.com)

 

Ann Dunham’s choice of major and career is both interesting and fitting, as the discipline had been on the cutting edge of extreme left progressivism since Margaret Mead’s controversial work “Coming of Age,” a book about sexual liberation of women it the South Pacific was published in 1928. Though the book has since been discredited, however it was a cornerstone of radical feminism and sexual liberation that drove the sexual revolution in the 1960s. The discipline of anthropology had been leaning further and further toward the radical left for some thirty years, but by the early 1960s it had become a bastion of liberalism with many dominant figures espousing socialism.

It was a natural home for someone like Ann Dunham. It is also, in a historical sense, an ironic one. The discipline of anthropology began to expand and earn distinction as a unique and useful science to western governments in the advancement of colonialism. Through the employing of anthropologists, governments could come to better understand the natives, cultures, traditions and norms of those places brought under colonial rule. Anthropologists found gainful employment with the military during wartime. Close association with the US government caused much tension within the discipline. “Many served in the armed forces but others worked in intelligence (for example, Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information). At the same time, David H. Price's work on American anthropology during the Cold War provides detailed accounts of the pursuit and dismissal of several anthropologists from their jobs for communist sympathies.”[2] 

Of course, not all anthropologists are socialists, however a noted above the discipline becomes a natural home for those of that political and philosophical bent. Much of the leftward leaning influence in anthropological circles may be attributed, ironically, to that which enabled it to be recognized in the first place. Those espousing progressive socialism harbor a deep-rooted resentment for the technologically advanced societies that they view as harmful to other cultures and peoples. They see the inequality of wealth and power as an undue encroachment and a destructive influence in the world, the haves taking yet more from the have-nots. In this sense, their resentment becomes anti-western, anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist and in the case of Ann Dunham and her contemporaries, especially those who were educated at colleges and universities during the 1960s through the early 1970s, rabid and extreme anti-Americanism.

To better illustrate the general ideological thrust of those espousing and advocating socialism in and through anthropology, especially considering the influence of socialist ideology upon the discipline throughout the 60s and 70s, useful information may be gleaned through the work of Dr, Eugene E. Ruyle. Dr. Ruyle, who earned his PhD in Anthropology from Columbia University in 1971, and who was Professor of Anthropology at CSU, Long Beach is currently a candidate for United States Representative in California’s District 10, is endorsed for the seat by the Peace and Freedom Party.[3] His positions reflect a lifetime of immersion in radical-left and progressive socialist circles, and advocacy of these causes in the classroom.

In a position paper entitled, “Why Socialism,” Dr. Ruyle explains:

For most of my professional career as an anthropologist, I have been concerned with understanding our species, the problems we face as a species, and the role of my country in finding solutions. After considering all the alternatives and all the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face as Americans and as a species are all products of capitalism and cannot be solved within the framework of capitalism. A new social and economic system, socialism, is necessary to provide the framework to address issues such as war, poverty, racism, sexism, pollution, health care, education, immigration, and global warming.

Socialism will come to America when the American people want it; socialism cannot and should not be imposed on Americans against their will. By the same logic, however, the United States does not have the right to prevent other nations from adopting socialism or any other economic system they chose. Yet this has been the dominant aim of U.S. foreign policy since WWII. This has not benefited the freedom and well being of the American people. Americans are less free and less secure because of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of other nations to make the world safe for U.S. corporations.[4]

In order to allow the reader a better understanding of what radical advocates of progressive socialism seek to achieve, a partial list of the immediate and log-term goals of socialist politicians, advocates and sympathizers as outlines by the Peace and Freedom Party follows:

·        Double the minimum wage, and index it to the cost of living.

·        Guarantee the right of all workers to organize and to strike; forbid striker replacement.

·        Socially useful jobs for all at union pay levels.

·        Equal pay for equal work, and for work of comparable worth.

·        A 30-hour workweek with no cut in weekly pay; longer paid vacations.

·        Guaranteed dignified income for those who cannot work.

·        A Universal Basic Income to alleviate poverty and homelessness.

·        Tax the income and assets of the rich to meet human needs.

·        International trade agreements must guarantee the protection of workers and the environment in all participating countries; abolish NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

·        End homelessness; abolish vagrancy laws; provide decent affordable housing for all.

·        Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources.

·        The United States should take the initiative toward global disarmament by eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

·        Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting "peace dividend" for social benefit.

·        Abolish the CIA, NSA, AID and other agencies for interference in other countries' internal affairs.

·        Convert from a military to a peace-oriented economy, with jobs for displaced workers.

·        Self-determination for all nations and peoples of the world, including Puerto Rico and all U. S. territories.

·        Defend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

·        End discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability.

·        Restore affirmative action, guarantee full education and employment rights for all.

·        Abolish the death penalty.

·        No prison labor for private profit.

·        Support the right of working people to keep and bear arms.

·        Democratic elections through proportional representation; full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

·        Honor treaties with Native American nations; recognize California's Native American nations. Defend and extend Native American rights and sovereignty.

·        Provide full free quality public education through university level. Teach the history of workers' struggles and labor's creation of society's wealth and progress.

·        Restore and strengthen bilingual education. Uncensored government funding for ordinary people to create and enjoy art.

·        Scientific and technological research to benefit ordinary people, not the capitalists.

·        Free high-quality health care for everyone, including birth control, abortion, pre-natal and childhood health care. No forced sterilizations.

·        Legalize marijuana, decriminalize drug use, and make substance abuse treatment freely available.

·        Give special attention to preventing epidemics of communicable diseases such as AIDS. Guarantee the rights of people living with AIDS.

·        Restore and protect air, water, land and ecosystems.

·        Promote conservation and develop solar and other renewable energy to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels.

·        End environmental racism: no toxic dumping in anyone's back yard.

·        Massive development of public transportation available free or at nominal fares.

·        Outlaw clear cutting and protect remaining old-growth forests.

·        Promote an environmentally sound agricultural system which meets human needs and protects farm workers' labor rights and standard of living.[5]

A paper presented by Dr. Ruyle at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association in San Diego, California, in April 1977 is summarized thus:

This paper attempts to clarify the Marxian concept of socialism and concludes that social evolution will culminate in a world socialist system. By viewing sociocultural systems from an ecological perspective it is argued that individuals tend to maximize their consumption of labor energy, and minimize their own expenditure of labor energy. This minimax principle underlies the succession of human ecosystems: the process of the emergence, development, and overthrow of class rule. The earliest social order was the primitive communism of the hunting and gathering world, marked by an equal obligation of all in labor and consumption. As this classless society became large and sedentary, a ruling class emerged and feudalism followed. However, in developing the productive forces of society, the feudal rulers generated a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism soon replaced feudalism. According to the Marxian analysis of capitalism, it too will pave the way for a new social order. Unemployment, poverty, crime, racism, freedom of thought, critical social science, free press, and democratic institutions will give the working class both the reason and the power to overthrow capitalism. Finally, because socialism will provide roughly equal levels of consumption and the free development of individual potential, it will become a lasting social order.[6]

The point of mentioning Dr. Ruyle and his socialist speech at an anthroplogical convention is to make the point that a distinguished professor would not gave given such a speech advocating such overtly socialist views at such a major event in his discipline if the contents were not reflective of the mainstream ideology held to by those making up that convention.  The singling out of Dr. Ruyle’s works and positions is in no way intended to belittle or to diminish his accomplishments to his profession and discipline. It is intended only to demonstrate for the reader the general ideological outlook and mindset of those who are immersed in radical progressive socialist thought and lifelong advocacy of that particular strain of political thought. What is clear from even a most casual observation of Dr. Ruyle’s positions and political goals for society is that they are very, very far removed from the reality of how most of us view the world around us and our place in it, vis-à-vis the role of the individual versus the role of government. They are, in a word, anti-American.

 

---

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/

[4] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper2.html

[5] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper3.html

[6] http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/36/de/e2.pdf

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and
enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child
care, elder care and pension security;

3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful
labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and

4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor,
environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.

The document, though not, of course, any sort of official endorsement of Obama is as close as one is going to get. It is, as I have previously intimated, realistic in its scope assessing and understanding Obama the candidate and potential President vis-à-vis the Democrat Party, yet the document also sheds light on the fact that the DSA understands the game very well and furthermore, understands the bigger political picture, so to speak and specifically acknowledges that a progressive President with the aid and assistance of a progressive majority in both houses of the legislature can fundamentally change the playing field and serve as a tool to move the Democrat Party, the machinations of government and the nation more and more to the left and clever closer to conformity with its socialist ideals.

Some brief excerpts of the document state in part:

1.  Obama promises to restore to American workers the right to organize; to renegotiate
international trade agreements so they enforce and do not retard labor, environmental, and
human rights; to re-regulate the financial sector and end speculative excess; to bring troops home
from Iraq and invest the saved funds in domestic needs; and to move toward universal health
care. That’s a program worth electing a president on– or fighting for in the event the president
and his party renege.

2.  Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up
Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant
democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most
favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government
to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed
universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to
develop green technologies and green jobs.

3.  While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political
system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in
November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical
political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.

If that is not an endorsement for an Obama Presidency, I am at a loss as to what is. As I have previously related, those on the extreme left, socialists and the like, take their ideology very, very seriously. It is their very identity and therefore they tend to be uncompromisingly defensive of it in every aspect. They will viciously defend that with which they concur and equally as viciously attack that which they oppose. These are not a lukewarm segment of the population, but rather they are active and radical in every way.   One need only to spend a few minutes glossing over the latest banter on the Daily Kos or other far left blogs and websites and you will soon get the point. One can only conclude, then, that for such serious ideologically and determined radicals to so endorse the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States is tantamount to saying that they identify with him ideologically, and this poses a very serious concern for the future of this republic as we know it, because if these people can throw their unwavering support to a man that they view as their best hope to advance the cause of socialism in this country, then suffice it to say that they identify Barack Obama as a socialist.

It is these types of glaringly obvious facts that no one in the mainstream media wants to let out. It is exactly these types of facts that condemn the mainstream media as at the very least complicit if not active participants in the massive cover-up of Obama’s lifelong socialist connections and associations, because it is never reported. The only notable exception has been the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s longtime spiritual advisor.

It is such blatant contradictions as these that raise red flags en masse amongst those who study politics, and in particular, among those who have a working knowledge of the politics of the far left.   Though the general populous may well be fooled into thinking that perhaps these people are throwing their support behind Obama simply because he is really the only realistic candidate they could choose from is to misunderstand those who live to advance radical socialist ideology entirely – indeed it is to misunderstand socialist ideology itself entirely. 

One would think, for example, that those of such socialist bent would in the past have endorsed a candidate like Ralph Nader, Presidential candidate of the Green Party and certainly a man with far left if not socialist leanings, yet they did not affirm Nader as a viable vehicle through which to promote their cause with an official statement from the Party itself. Remember, the document entitled “Statement on the 2008 Presidential Election” is an official statement of the position of the DSA with regard to the election, and though not an official “endorsement” per se, it can easily be translated to “this Obama is the best chance we have got, a once in a lifetime opportunity to implement a progressive agenda and move the government and nation decidedly to the left. Vote for Obama and encourage everyone you know to vote for Obama.”

It is a curious thing, is it not, that a man who claims to embody traditional American values and thought in his few writings and on the campaign trail, and who disavows any accusations that he harbors socialist beliefs and tendencies finds himself being endorsed by radical and extreme socialist political parties?

The average American voter knows frighteningly little about Barack Obama, and that is exactly the way he and his handlers want it to be, for with an obscured and shadowy history and the assistance of the mainstream media the candidate is thus free to re-define himself as he wishes to be packaged to voters. Politicians always want that packaging to be as attractive as possible, and so distancing oneself from such “progressive” ideas as restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in defense spending is essential. 

The historical record of Obama’s life, however, will prove otherwise. It will show definitively that Obama has always been heavily steeped in socialist ideology, at first by circumstance, but later by choice. And now he is applying his vast wealth and knowledge of political activism and radical tactics that he amassed as an eager and brilliant student of the subject over the course of his life through his associations and affiliations with many controversial figures and institutions. He is giving the performance of a lifetime during this all-or-nothing campaign. It is the purpose of this series to assist in the concerted effort to expose the true, deep-rooted and extreme socialist ideology Barack Obama has espoused throughout his entire life, and to inform the American that a Barack Obama Presidency will play a significant role in the demise of this republic as we know it. In the pages ahead the reader will see why and how Barack Obama is perhaps the most dangerous man in American Political history.

In his incontestable star-power, Obama is a uniquely American phenomenon: a highly charismatic man and gifted orator who can deliver a prepared speech extremely well, who began life with little and is now a multi-millionaire running for the most powerful elected office in the world. It is, in a very true sense, a story that could really only happen in America, which is sadly ironic because he is a man who hates America as it is. In fact, his love-hate relationship with America and his ideal of America is a prime example of the dichotomy that is Barack Obama. He despises America as it is; yet he says he loves America at every campaign stop. He is not lying, per se, but is withholding the whole truth of his belief about America. When he says he loves America, what he is saying is that he loves America as he envisions it becoming once it succumbs to even more socialist ideology and policy and moves ever more decisively toward becoming the socialist utopia he has dreamed of since his youth.

Socialism is the fundamental change he wishes to bring to America, yet in preparing to do so he must operate stealthily and speak in vagaries, because he knows full well that if he were to openly speak of such things that are well understood to be core socialist principles even many of his own party would abandon him for fear of such ideology, and rightly so. Yet he does, in a sense, speak freely of such things, as he cannot help but to do so. He speaks in a manner employing specific words and phrases with double meanings, meanings that could be understood as well-intentioned and benign, yet clearly understood by those of a decidedly socialist bent as being code for pronouncing his unwavering commitment to core socialist principles. For example, phrases such as “economic justice” are defined by the campaign as meaning something to help the poor, while that same phrase is clearly understood by the far left as well as the far right, though much less enthusiastically, as referring to the basic socialist principle of massive redistribution of wealth through heavy progressive taxation.

Indeed Obama’s life is filled with radical acquaintances, friends, and mentors who were or are not only avowed socialists, but also some who were known and admitted Communists and members of the Communist Party, USA, a front for Moscow during the Cold War, who worked aggressively to further the Communist cause in the US. In fact, even today Obama has found favor with the extreme left, as evidenced by the section of his website named “Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.” The link is here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. Here is the description of this section: 

“This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!”[1]

One would think that a man who campaigns as a “mainstream” American who shares typical American values and beliefs would shudder at a public endorsement by Marxists and socialists on his official campaign website. It is important to note that the above is not an official endorsement by the CPUSA or the Democratic Socialists of America, as these to not officially endorse major party candidates.

Obama’s ties to the extreme left can be easily traced back to his earliest political races, and even prior to that. In fact, in one glaring example of Obama demonstrating his solidarity with the far left and their socialist agendas, the Investors Business Daily notes in an article published on August 20, 2008 in a multi-part series on Obama’s links to socialism that:

“In 1995, he sought the endorsement of the New Party for his 1996 state Senate candidacy. The party — a collection of anti-capitalist ex-communists and socialists that disbanded in 1998 after six years of trying to push the Democratic Party even further left — gladly gave Obama its support.”

“Obama also was endorsed in that election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish ‘an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics’ and is committed to ‘restructuring society.’”[2]

The same piece aptly concludes, “these groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.”[3]

In visiting the Democratic Socialists of America website, they immediately state their purpose:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.[4]

In a part of the DSA website entitled, “Where We Stand: the political perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America,” is found a document that states their purpose and intent. It is a concise summary of their particular bent of socialist worldview. Section 4 of this document is entitled, “A Strategy for the Next Left.” It begins thus:

Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.[5]

Section 5 is called “the Role of Electoral Politics,” and states, in part:

Democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on anew party or on realignment within the Democratic Party. The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts.

Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.

Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates mobilize such coalitions, democratic socialists will build such organizations and candidacies. However, to democratize U.S. electoral politics - whatever its party form -requires serious campaign finance reform both within and without the Democratic Party.[6]

Finally, section 6 of the document is entitled, “The Role of Democratic Socialists,” and states in part:

The founding document [of the DSA] called for carrying out a strategy and program that were already the mainstays of mass liberalism, but moving this broad liberal coalition considerably to the left. DSA's new document points in another direction, toward the founding of a new progressive movement...a next Left.

The success of global capitalism demands that traditional democratic standards of justice, equality, and decency be undermined. [Emphasis mine] For the simple dream of a comfortable standard of living, of community, and of equity to be realized, radical political, economic, and social changes in the established order are required.

The belief is widespread that we stand at the beginning of a new political era -- that the Left must create a new vision and a new mission rooted in a new sense of purpose. Democratic socialists have an historic opportunity and responsibility to play a central role in the founding of a next Left, and DSA is prepared to meet this challenge.[7]

It is glaringly obvious that that the DSA, just as any true socialist organization, operates via an ”ends justify the means” philosophy. It is also clear that while they would prefer to remain a “third party” entity and amass power and influence by building their own organizations and extending their own power base, that they readily acknowledge the improbability of being able to do so. Thus they recognize the necessity of operating within an already existing power base and legitimately recognized third party unstained by the stigma of the images that the word “socialist” conjures up. They therefore are open to, if not enthusiastic about, operating within the major political party with which they can most closely ideologically identify, that being the Democrat Party. The DSA is realistic in its assessment that at times even Democrat candidates will be at odds with the socialist principles being advanced by the DSA, but are willing to wait for those candidates to come along with whom they can most closely identify and who will likely be more sympathetic to the socialist cause.

To that end, the Democratic Socialists of America are more excited and optimistic about the 2008 Presidential election than they have been in recent memory. They are so excited that they have released a statement on the 2008 Presidential Election that offers encouragement to the DSA Party faithful regarding the prospects of an Obama Presidency. Though neither the DSA nor the CPUSA will actively officially endorse or campaign for even a far left Democrat, they will support him because they understand the reality that the political scene in the United States is such that such candidates are their best hope to manipulate and influence the system to conform to its radical agenda.

 

---

 

[1] http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. 

[2] Finding Friends On Far, Far Left By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008

[3] Ibid.

[4]http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[5]http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Barack Obama, a virtual unknown until 2004 when he was invited to give a prime-time address at the Democrat National Convention in Boston, has shot to the forefront of the national political scene and become the quintessential political “rock-star” almost overnight. His is a compelling and historical candidacy of firsts, not the least significant of these being that he is the first African-American to win the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States. But the flip side is that Obama’s candidacy is also a first in some questionable ways. For instance, there has never been, in the history of this nation, a candidate for the highest office in the land who has simply come out of nowhere and so quickly and successfully captured national attention and approval and yet accomplished this without revealing who he is or, with the glaring exception of a few hot button issues, what he believes. We know disturbingly little about Senator Barack Obama, and as time goes on it becomes all the more clear that this is not by accident. 

Indeed, there is so little in the way of writings (none) wherein he divulges his true thoughts and opinions on divers political matters as to allow potential supporters and voters to come to a full and well-rounded understanding of the “real” Obama that the initial researchers, journalists and anyone wanting to gain an in depth understanding of who this man is and what he believes at his core must resort to combing through news paper stories and articles previously written about him; and, for the most dedicated, this also meant the necessity of travel to the four corners of the globe to track down and interview those people with whom Obama spent the various period of his life. This author is most grateful to those who have undertaken such difficult and grueling work, because that work has come at a price.

Those who first began researching Senator Barack Obama to report on his life, his beliefs, where he has been and what he has done and said have at first had to largely rely upon the works penned by Obama himself: Dreams of My Father, The Audacity of Hope, and Change We Can Believe In, Obama’s campaign-plan for fundamentally changing America. Initially authors were heavily reliant upon these works while digging into Obama’s past to find something, anything, to corroborate Obama’s version of his life. 

What these first intrepid investigators found was very interesting, if not disturbing. In many cases they found seemingly contradictory evidence from what Obama himself has claimed, but what is most alarming is that in many, if not most cases, they either found nothing – as in absolutely nothing to either contradict or affirm Obama’s version and claims; or, they found themselves completely stonewalled by Obama supporters and even staff at the various institutions where they were conducting their journalistic investigations. Of course no one the mainstream media would want to look any deeper into “fringe” and “conspiratorial” journalists claims of a cover-up by Obama’s people and campaign, and yet the harder researchers push the more we see that the depth and scope of this cover-up boggles the mind.   

As if that were not disturbing enough in and of itself, the evidence that was being uncovered by researchers who sought out those who were Obama’s acquaintances and friends, who dug into his family life and began to ask what would otherwise be normal questions, were viciously and ferociously attacked when they printed their findings. And many of those findings are very disturbing. And as one compares the evidence of his early life and formative years with his young adulthood, college days, law school, community organizing and eventually politics, a pattern emerges of a man who was from his very earliest days steeped heavily in extreme socialist ideology of the “radical-on-the-fringe-of-society variety,” and who took great pains and went to great extremes to not leave any sort of trail that would reveal his true self and his true intentions.

In fact, it could be said that Barack Obama, in the sense of carefully choosing what he has said and how he said it throughout his adult life, has arguably out-Clintoned Bill Clinton, an undisputed master of the science of political doublespeak. Indeed, Obama has not merely been careful to the extreme about not letting on to what he really thinks and believes by the cautious use of vague language, but he has also been deliberately deceptive in many instances so as to purposefully mislead the public into assuming that he is saying he believes one thing while all the evidence of research reveals something entirely different. 

As the subtitle of this piece suggests, Barack Obama has been immersed in the extremes of socialist ideology from his earliest years, and it is this very ideology that has determined and shaped precisely who Barack Obama is, what he believes, what he would do and how he would govern if elected President of the United States. It is a sobering if not fearful assessment of the man.

While his vagaries served him well during his earlier years, in college and even at Harvard Law, once he entered into the radical world of “community organizing” and social agitation, and then into politics, Obama’s ability to deliberately avoid leaving a paper trail became largely diminished, much to his dismay to be sure. One need at that point only to research the news articles written about him or his policies and votes, to look into those organizations with which he was employed, and to dig into his personal and political associations in order to formulate an accurate image of who and what Barack Obama is. It is not a pretty picture.

The image that emerges is one of a man whose extreme version of socialist ideology, radical belief system totally anathema to that of mainstream America, and radical associations to controversial and dangerous people represent the core of who this man is.   It is the image of a man who long ago make the conscious decision to advance his beliefs and career by employing the Marxian the motto, “the ends justify the means.” This is the image of a man who will do or say whatever it takes to further his agenda, and having masterfully defined the parameters of debate as well as the field of play such that he could be the one to define himself, all he really needs is willing accomplices to carry out his designs which, thanks to his adoring fans and rabid recruiting machine in the mainstream media, he now has millions of. 

These Obama fans constitute an adoring army that will bark on command to refute rock-solid evidence that Obama is far from the prophet of hope and change he purports to be. In fact, in true “Alinskyesque” fashion, the Obama website even has a section on his website called “Fight the Smears. Help push back on the false and divisive methods of our opponents. Spread the truth.” Ah, yes, and the truth shall set you free. Through this section of the Obama website he instructs his army of rabid progressives to assault any attempts to portray Senator Obama as anything other than the beneficent One for whom the world has been waiting with overwhelming force, shock and awe. For example, the site lists “smears and lies” and instructs the faithful on how to combat them, for example by calling into right-wing radio shows and tying up the phone lines when controversial anti-Obama guests will be on.

Because there was, and by the standards used to gauge most politicians on the national scene still is, so little evidence to help one to formulate an accurate image of him in the sense of being able to know about and see and assess every aspect and detail of his life, there have naturally been many attacks that have been debunked, and rightfully so, for no man or woman ought to be smeared or slandered with labels that are untrue. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama is a contradiction, a dichotomy who, to appropriately paraphrase Karl Marx, operates as a mole moving beneath the surface while leaving no trace on the surface of his direction or true intent.

Or, would he prefer to remain in the Democrat majority of the Senate come January 20? Or maybe he’s even sending out feelers for a Cabinet post in an Obama Administration… It is getting hard to tell. In fact one could possibly argue that he doesn’t really want it. After all, how many opportunities has McCain had to call into question Obama’s stealth past, his socialist and terrorist connections, his complete and very obvious lack of any academic work that might offer even a minute view into that the man is really thinking and how he views the world – and he has passed nearly all of them by until last week. Indeed, even going on the attack for Senator McCain seem to mean letting you running mate do the dirty work. It is not an abnormal thing to have the candidate at the top of the ticket try to remain above the fray and appear more “statesman-like” while their running mate goes for the jugular. 

Here’s where I have a problem with McCain’s alleged strategy: he’s not going for the jugular and I don’t think he will. Worse, I believe it’s not that he wouldn’t, it’s that he believes he shouldn’t. Senator McCain, a career navy man who has more than served his fair share of time in combat and the living hell of North Vietnamese POW camp, no doubt understands very well the essence of combat. Whether the combat is military or political the goal of combat is victory, and one achieves victory in only one of two ways: one forces the enemy to surrender, or one destroys and terminates the enemy. 

Given the stakes in this election and the fact that they have just been raised immeasurably higher by the recent government actions to nationalize massive segments of the private economy, which McCain himself supports, one would think the Senator would be fighting as hard as he can to destroy and terminate the enemy rather than simply try to force him to capitulate and surrender, and this most especially so given the fact that Obama is undoubtedly the most dangerous man ever to position himself for a takeover of the US Government. I say takeover, rather than “seek election” because in seeking election one does not employ miscreants to engage in vote fraud on a massive scale, nor does one celebrate little children being forced to sing propaganda songs about “hope and change,” nor does one remain conspicuously silent on the subject of youths dressed in fatigues performing paramilitary drills in public schools while shouting out Obama’s plans for “change.”

The thing I am finding truly disturbing is that right now he appears to be fighting for neither capitulation nor destruction of the enemy. In fact, just within the last couple of days Senator McCain has actively defended Obama. His admonished his own supporters for demanding he hit Obama harder over his connection to terrorist William Ayers, and then called Senator Barack Obama an inherently good and decent man who loves and believes in America.

Senator, I beg to differ wit your assessment of Mr. Obama, and here’s why:

1. Inherently good and decent men do not enable infanticide;

2. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when their supporters threaten to bring criminal charges against anyone who speaks ill of The One;

3. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when children are being exploited for political purposes;

4. Inherently good and decent men to not go out of their way to hide their past;

 5. Inherently good and decent men to not remain silent when children are indoctrinated into politically extremist views by those who are entrusted with their care and education’

6. Inherently good and decent men would not have spent 20 years in a racist, anti-American “church” listening to their pastor incite hate in the name of Christ;

7. Inherently good and decent men would admit to their past associations with extremist groups like ACORN, would admit to the roles they served, and denounce attempts to win an election by fraud;

8. Inherently good and decent men do no associate with admitted and unrepentant terrorists;

9. Inherently good and decent men would denounce their endorsements by Marxist and socialist groups, as well as foreign terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah;

10. Inherently good and decent men would not actively try to subvert the foreign policy of the sitting President (however misguided he may be…);

11. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert the Constitution at every opportunity;

12. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert their own nation’s sovereignty to a world body like the UN;

13. Inherently good and decent men speak plainly about what they believe and what they want to do;

14. Inherently good and decent men do not actively sanction the suppression of free speech;

15. Inherently good and decent men do not devalue human life to the equivalent of a “mistake”;

16. Inherently good and decent men do not engage in corrupt activity and then point fingers at others;

17. Inherently good and decent men would admit to past mistakes and ask forgiveness;

18. Inherently good and decent men do not play the “race-card”;

19. Inherently decent men do not incite race-riots through their surrogates;

20. Inherently good and decent men would speak the truth.

There is nothing good and decent about Barack Obama. He is a monster who enabled infanticide simply so he could continue to rake in campaign money and support from Planned Parenthood. He was an “academic” yet never published any professional work, only is self-crafted and spun autobiography. He has denied associations anyone with an internet connection can validate that he had, he refuses to answer questions on almost every facet of his life’s story, and he received not merely a free pass but the adulation and love of the smitten masses who have been waiting for “the One.” History shows time and again when a man come out of nowhere and ascends to high office without vetting and proper examination, the consequences can be most severe. And now with the perfect storm brewing economically, socio-politically, and culturally, we have in Obama the most extreme and dangerous ideological zealot every to seek the Presidency, and a man who has employed masterfully the teaching of his master, Saul Alinsky – deceit on a massive scale, because one cannot divulge who they really are lest they be rejected. Hence the necessity of pretending to be like everyone else; to lie, cheat and steal, to employ thuggish threats and corruption, and to deny everything with a smile while playing the “race-card.” 

The fact is that we no more about Sarah Palin’s 17 year of daughter’s pregnancy and Sarah’s newborn son Trigg than we do about Obama. But John McCain believes he is a good and decent man. The man who as President would utterly destroy what is left of capitalism and liberty in this country is a “good and decent man?” 

While I had been a “fence-sitter” or a “nose-holder,” in less than lukewarm support of this ticket, with this statement coming from a man who portents to be a conservative and a maverick, I can stand it no longer, because with such a statement McCain has as much as openly admitted that he will not rock the boat in Washington, he will not cross the line that counts, he will not be a real maverick when it comes to truly standing up for what is right. And most disappointingly of all, in admonishing his supporters he makes it clear that he will not go for the jugular and fight to terminate Obama’s chances at the White House with the arsenal he has available to him. He will not use all the weaponry at his disposal to bring this combat to a victorious conclusion for the American people. He will not put his country first – for fear of offending fence-sitting Democrats and perhaps losing their support. At this point, in my own opinion, the only reason McCain can call himself a maverick is because he has fought conservatives every inch of the way. 

Like many others out there, I can take a lot and compromise to a point. My line in the sand has been crossed. And, I am now more than ever convinced that if this republic is to survive as a free society, it will be because the third parties run the Democrats and Republicans out of town and make the Constitution the law of the land once again. Anything less will be un-survivable after an Obama Presidency. Continued capitulation to Obama’s Chicago socialist propaganda machine is merely a policy of appeasement that will only serve to undermine the cause of the right. I am now convinced that McCain does not have it in him to fight Obama to the death, so to speak. We all know the MSM is in the bad for Obama, and that Obama is a vey intelligent man with a massive underground extremist organization determined to hand him the Presidency licitly or illicitly – by any means necessary. 

And now we know that the GOP leadership will roll over and cut the best deal it can with these traitorous thugs while leaving the rest of us with false hope. I will not be fooled. I know the GOP cannot be trusted any more than the Democrats. If the future of this republic is in any way to resemble the glories of her past days, the only viable way to set this course is through independent candidates, third parties and merciless phone and email assaults on Capitol Hill. I, for one and for what it is worth, will be throwing myself into third party activism and campaigning. If I had money I’d be throwing that too. It is far better to begin and end the revolution with the ballot rather than with the shedding of blood which should be avoided at all costs, although I am not at all convinced that the government, especially under Obama, would be able resist the temptation to fire the first shot. May God help us in our righteous cause of Liberty.

Since today is Respect Life Sunday I felt the need to repost an article I wrote some time ago. It is an article about Obama’s extreme pro-abortion stance and his support of infanticide. It has been modified slightly from its’ original form. I believe Obama’s pro-abortion extremism and activism warrants not merely revisiting the subject over and over again, but indeed speaking and writing of it so often that the average citizen with their head in the sand cannot help but to notice. 

For me, from my Catholic Christian perspective, it is an obligation to illuminate the unspeakable evils enabled by men and women of Obama’s ilk, yet all too sadly such discussion of the truth fall on deaf ears even in many Christian circles. This truth is ugly and must be told and acknowledged. What is perhaps most disturbing to me is that as Americans so many profess to be Christians, believers in the salvation of humanity bought by the price of the Blood of Christ, yet so many of these self-professed believers also either actively sanction the unjustifiable slaughter of the innocent unborn in their own mother’s wombs or they take the politically correct approach and claim that it would be wrong to “impose” their moral beliefs on others. I submit that such a weak excuse will not win the favor of the Almighty when at judgment the tens of millions of holy innocents fill the Holy Courts and ask, “Why?”

Indeed, for those who profess belief in God in general and in Christ as Savior in particular there cannot be any validity found in what we Catholics term the “cafeteria” approach where one accepts all the warm-and-fuzzy sentiments and rewards of Christianity while rejecting either tacitly or outright the difficult moral stances required in order to obtain even the possibility of attaining such rewards.

To say that Americans have become complacent in their faith is an understatement, for it is increasingly clear that many do not see the inherent and irrefutable connection between the moral evils being perpetrated in this country and our collective woes as a nation. To pass such things off as merely coincidental is not only naïve but deadly – both to one’s soul and to our republic. I readily confess that I am no theologian; however, to deny the correlation between, say, the tens of millions of abortions that have been allowed to take place on American soil – something we know as Christians is inherently evil and unjustifiable under any condition or pretext – and the idea that disobedience to God by the continuing perpetration of grave moral evils will ultimately result in the loss of His grace to sustain us is completely and utterly stupid, not to mention hypocritical. When we turn our collective backs on God and His Commandments as a nation should it be any surprise, then, that He withdraws His grace and leaves us to our own devices in our imperfect and fallen condition, subject to our own concupiscence to fend for ourselves? It is any wonder that the more prideful we become as a nation the less guidance and assistance we can expect from our humble and living God? 

If we are to regain our footing and return our nation to prosperity it is necessary to acknowledge God and His commandments, to honor them, and to collectively repent of the evils that go on within our boarders. Darkness cannot withstand the light of Truth, and it is indeed His Truth that will once again set us free from slavery to sin. We can illuminate the darkness by speaking the truth and here is a good place to start: actions have consequences in the eyes of God, for Jesus tells us as much throughout the Gospels. Remember the wheat and the chaff?   Let us not mince words, then.

And trashes her family. Nice, and very enlightening insight into the minds of progressive socialists.

It appears Obama’s surrogate minions in the Great White North have been working overtime in the creativity department. The latest overtly sexist attack against Sarah Palin comes from… you guessed it, a progressive socialist writer in Canada who just looooves Barack Hussein Obama! According to Heather Mallick writing for the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, Sarah Palin is not merely “inexperienced” and “unprepared” and “frighteningly extreme on abortion.”   No, she is comparable to a porn actress.

I guess now that Canada has delved to the very depths of socialism and legislated a radical progressivism that apparently encourages, if not mandates hate-speech filled and sexist-slurred articles against anything purporting normal, traditional Judeo-Christan values. How very sad for them. I wonder how Mallick will feel when her progressive extremism celebrates diversity and multiculturalism to the extent that they recognize sharia law and allow Muslim men to brutalize their wives in the name of Allah? Oh. Wait – they’re already doing that in BC. But I digress…

Mallick is so clever. Here’s a couple of excerpts for you:

“Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a _______ redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?”

“I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.”

Here is the full article: A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention

Here is Heather Mallick’s website: www.heathermallick.ca

Here is the feedback link to the CBC: SEND YOUR FEEDBACK

I am sure they would love to hear from you. 

I would be hard pressed to think of a time I have rad something so offensive masquerading as journalism. But, then again, as Michael Savage has repeatedly said, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.” And this is incontestable proof that he was right.

Senator Obama came out swinging at John McCain this morning, taking swipes at his “extreme” position against abortion, and his minions in the MSM are only too willing to deliver the ever-convoluted messages of the Prophet of Hope and Change. The AP (read DNC) hit the ground running this morning with an article entitled, “Obama calls out McCain on abortion.” Gee, with a title like that, you’d just have to assume Obama holds the correct position on abortion. 

McCain is opposed to abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or in cases of rape and incest. He would prefer to see Roe overturned and the issue sent back to the states, where it belongs. In fact, Obama is so confident that he is in the right, he rails that McCain holds an "extreme position on choice" and "will make abortion illegal."

It is difficult to wrap one’s mind around the fact that Obama does not see his position on abortion as extreme. As has been reported since he announced his candidacy, Obama favors unrestricted abortion to include lifting all bans on partial-birth abortion. Obama also fought hard to kill a bill in the Illinois State Senate that would have protected a newborn baby that survived a late-term induced-labor abortion. In fact, he is on the record on the floor of the State Senate as not merely speaking out against the bill, but in doing so making a convoluted argument as to why a baby born alive should not be afforded “human personhood” because it would “unduly encroach upon Roe.” Translated, that means, “I can’t afford to let these children live because I must retain my 100% rating from NARAL in order to received money from Planned Parenthood.”

Here is Obama in his own words on the floor of the Illinois State Senate:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

To clarify his twisted reasoning Senator Obama explained it thus: "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute." [For audio of this testimony click here.]

Barack Obama has stated “the first thing I’d do as president“ would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years.

If that is not the extreme position of a murderous pro-infanticide zealot, then what is?