Saturday, September 6, 2008

"Re-education" Camps? Sounds more like North Korea . . .

Posted: September 06, 2008
11:45 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily - "A Free Press For a Free People"

The tax-funded Chicago organization cited as a probable model for programs to integrate youth into the social and political world under an Obama tenure in the White House is the epitome of "Big Brother" that shovels impressionable youth through a course of brainwashing, according to critics.

The organization is called Public Allies and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of directors in 1992. He later resigned and his wife became executive director of the group.

According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, Obama plans to use the non-profit, which is funded partly by the federal government and is featured on Obama's campaign website, as the model for a national service corps, called the "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

WND reported earlier when Obama asserted in a Colorado Springs speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

"Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas," said IBD. "They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"

The organization itself doesn't seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities "while developing better leaders for tomorrow." Young adults are placed in "community leadership" posts with various agencies and given weekly "training." They get $1,800 plus health and child care.

But IBD warns the real mission is something else.

That, the editorial said, "is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about 'social change' through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul 'The Red' Alinsky."

Dr. Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "The Obama Nation," agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama acquaintance who spent the 1970s and 1980s as an unrepentant radical, during his various programs regarding public education.

"Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky's ultimate advice," Corsi explained. "Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office," he said.

"Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting 'change' and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to 'change,'" he said.

IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted, "our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to … engage in protest activities." The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities.

"I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent said, according to IBD.

The organization boasts more than two-thirds of its recruits are "people of color," and 15 percent of "LGBT." When they're not out protesting, IBD said, "they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare."

Obama has encouraged individuals to shun the "money culture."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in Denver while accepting the Democratic nomination for president, "we will make sure you can afford a college education."

The IBD said the sales pitch is finding supportive listeners among today's youth.

"I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," it quotes Brian Coovert, of the Cincinnati Allies chapter saying. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies' expenses through President Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion.

The organization notes that it is a non-partisan organization so it does not endorse candidates. However, it has a lengthy description of the involvement by the Obamas with the organization.

Smoking Guns?

Read carefully and decide for yourself.  Could it be that Barack Obama is attempting an immaculate fraud on an entire nation and the people he deems himself qualified to lead? Again, keep in mind that the lawsuit was filed by an attorney who is one of the most prominent DEMOCRATS in the state of Pennsylvania.  He insists that if his allegations are true, it is imperative for the Democrats to nominate a different person ASAP if they are to stand a chance of reclaiming the White House.  Otherwise, you can be sure that all of the former Hilary supporters will "defect" and vote for McCain, as will many of Obama's own former supporters once he's been disqualified.

1.) A link to the Hawaii State Court docket from divorce proceedings between Obama's mother and her Indonesian husband.  This proves that the marriage did in fact exist, since you don't need to be a lawyer to know that you can't exactly dissolve a non-existent marriage.  Based on laws at that time, the marriage would have caused Obama to become an Indonesian citizen and no longer an American citizen, assuming he was even one to start with:

http://obamacrimes.com/attachments/002_Stanley%20Ann%20Soetoro%20HI%20Divorce%20Docket.pdf

2.) Proof that Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was forged, and thus constitutes a REAL "change you can believe in" :

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html

3.) Motion For Temporary Restraining Order

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaMotionforTRO.pdf

4.) Memorandum In Support of Motion for TRO and Expedited Discovery (If Nothing Else, Read This: A Complete Narrative of All Relevant Facts)

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaMemSupportTRO082108.pdf

5.) Complaint for Relief- an injunction preventing Obama from running for President of the United States as the Democratic nominee

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaComplaint.pdf

Scandal In The Making?

Born in the U.S.A.? 
By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
08/25/2008

PHILADELPHIA - A Lafayette Hill attorney filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Sen. Barack Obama's claim to United States citizenship. The action seeks to remove the Democratic candidate from the November ballot.

To be eligible to serve as U.S. president, a person must be born in this country. According to Obama's birth certificate, which his campaign posted on its Internet site in June to quell rumors that he is foreign born, the Illinois senator was born in Hawaii on Aug. 6, 1961. 

On Thursday, Philip Berg filed a temporary restraining order in federal court to bar Obama from running for president, claiming the Democratic candidate was actually born in Africa.
"We really don't believe he was born in Hawaii," Berg said. "We think he was born in Kenya."
The presidential candidate's father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, according to Obama's campaign Web site. 

Berg's suit claims the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country.

Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas, and his parents met at the University of Hawaii when Dunham was a student there, according to the Obama campaign.

Eventually, Obama's father returned to Kenya, and his son grew up in Hawaii with his mother and for a few years in Indonesia after Dunham married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. Also, Obama lived with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.

"If he was born in Hawaii, and he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, (Obama) would lose his citizenship," Berg said.

The Obama campaign has a special section on its Web site, "Fight the Smears," that debunks the birth certificate story and other reports that have circulated about him during the campaign.

"It's part of a smear campaign," said an Obama campaign volunteer who identified herself as Rachel. "There are just so many lies out there."

The lawsuit claims three "independent" document forensic experts performed extensive tests on the digitally-scanned image of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on the campaign's site and found the document to be "a forgery."

Jerome Corsi, author of the book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," has also deemed the birth certificate phony, according to The Annenberg Political Fact Check, www.FactCheck.org.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, aims to expose deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

Recently, FactCheck.org staffers "touched, examined and photographed" the original birth certificate kept at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago and concluded the document is genuine.

"The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.," FactCheck.org staffers concluded.

Sean Smith, Obama's Pennsylvania communications director, was contacted Friday about the suit but declined comment.

The civil suit filed by Berg will be reviewed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission, according to Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

MANHUNT.NET supports John McCain

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Why Would Any Gay Person Support John McCain?

Maybe the bloggers at gaypatriot. net have a feasible answer:

"Many gay men and lesbians support this courageous veteran because we know he is sound on the most important issue of the day, the war against Islamofascism.

Indeed, we realize that that issue is particularly important to gay people, given the strong anti-gay bias of Muslim extremists and the continual persecution and execution of gay people in Islamic theocracies, like Iran."



Jamie Kirchick, editor of New Republic, also offers a possible explanation for such a horribly disturbing trend:

"When then–Tempe, Ariz., mayor Neil Giuliano revealed his homosexuality to preempt threats to out him, John was the first to tell the religious right, ‘This doesn’t make a damned bit of difference,’ Giuliano later told The Boston Globe.

A McCain presidency would transform the GOP for the better. Republicans chose a man who is driven by a temperament that inhibits him from resorting to the crass gay baiting of his peers."

We'd all better cancel our supscriptions to The Advocate. After all, they're the ones who published Kirchick's column in their March 20, 2008 issue. Don't just take my word for it, see for yourself:

http://www. advocate. com/exclusive_detail_ektid52837. asp

McCain Myths

MYTH: John McCain opposes gay marriage, and Obama favors it.

REALITY: Both McCain and Obama believe that marriage should stay between "one man, one woman." At the same however, John McCain twice voted against the propsosed Federal Marriage Amendment.


MYTH: John McCain supports "Don't Ask Don't Tell," so he is therefore opposed to gays in the military.

REALITY: To start with, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat who is for some reason admired by many gays and lesbians for his supposed support of gay rights. Also, if McCain truly did not want gays in the military, he wouldn't want them keeping quiet. He'd want the gay servicemen to admit it so they could be get kicked out.


MYTH: Because John McCain is pro-life, he will appoint a justice to the Supreme Court who will provide the fifth vote necessary to overturn Roe versus Wade and make abortion illegal.

REALITY: It's simple math. You need to have four votes before you can get a fifth. Right now there are only two. Also, you can bet that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would sooner be wheeled into the courtroom in gurney than give up her seat to a pro-life judge. Besides, overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal anyways, contrary to the common misperception. It would simply give individual states the OPTION of doing so.


MYTH: Just because McCain was a POW in Vietnam, he is qualified to be the President.

REALITY: I suppose there is some truth in this, as the fact that McCain was a POW does not in and of itself make him qualified for the presidency. However, it proves that he truly loves his country, something Obama has yet to demonstrate (particularly when he refuses to renounce his long-held ties with William Ayers, leader of a domestic terrorist group that was setting off bombs in the US during the same years McCain was held captive in Vietnam). Furthermore, John McCain has shown he is qualified to lead our country by serving in Congress for 25 years, earning the repect of Arizona's Democrats and Republicans alike. I'm from Arizona originally, and every time McCain ran for reelection as Senator, he won by a landslide.


MYTH: John McCain's honesty and integrity should be questioned because he was one of the infamous "Keating Five" senators.

REALITY: I'm surprised that more Obama supporters haven't brought this up, but it's probably because they know that in the end, this scandal showed McCain to be a man of the utmost honesty and integrity, not being afraid to admit responsibilty and also respond proactively to make ensure that furture members of Congress didn't make the same mistake he did prior to the S & L collapses in the late 80's. Indeed, John McCain did accept political contributions from disgraced financier Charles Keating, with the expectation that McCain would influence government regulators to make special exceptions to the rules for the Savings & Loan that Keating owned. The Senate Ethics Committee cleared McCain of wrongdoing, finding his involvement in the scandal minimal, but nonetheless scolded him for using "poor judgment." In 2002, McCain authored the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill (aka McCain-Feingold Act), largely intended to prevent other legislators from making the same types of mistakes.

"Anti-McCain" ad backfires!!!

This ought to help John McCain pick up more votes, especially in today's day in age . . .

Friday, September 5, 2008

CASEY'S DOSE OF REALITY #7328 (and counting . . .)

So many gay men have reminded me that John McCain has publicly stated that marriage should only be between "one man and one woman." That is true, but much to people's amazement, Barack Obama has said that also!!! In fact, there has never been a nominee, from either the Republican or Democratic party, who has said anything else.

In fact, wasn't it President Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT, who signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" back in 1996? Let's remember what the exact words of this legislation actually said:

"No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state."

AND AS IF THAT WEREN'T BAD ENOUGH . . . 

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if ure concluded or recognized by one of the states."

This bill got to Bill Clinton's desk due to overwhelming bipartisan suppport in both the Senate (85-14 vote) and the House (342-67 vote). So obviously, congressmen from BOTH parties supported this legislation. It is beyond me how any gay or lesbian can think that the Democrats truly care about our rights. They just want our vote!!!

So let's make something very clear. Even if the recent CA Supreme Court Decision survives the challenge on the November ballot, that will be great for gay couples as long as they stay in California (unless they move to Mass.). But if you and your "partner" move to any other state, your marrriage certificate will not be worth the paper it's printed on. And who do you have to thank for that? A bipartisan congressional vote and an ultimate signature of approval by a DEMOCRAT president (who could have used a VETO to prove he really did care about gay rights).

And btw, didn't this same Democrat approve "Don't Ask Don't Tell?" That's why I laugh my head off when people tell me that McCain is against gays in the military because he approves "Don't Ask Don't Tell." First of all, it's was the Democrat Bill Clinton who signed that bill into law, and secondly, if McCain really didn't want gays in the military, he would not support "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Instead, his philosophy would be, "Do ask, do tell, and once you tell, get the hell out!"

Ever since Sarah Palin was nominated as VP, many women throughout America have stood up to the feminist groups and said "you don't speak for us." So who's to say that as gay men, we can't stand up to groups like GLAAAD and HRC and say the same? Just some food for thought.

Casey

Thursday, September 4, 2008

TIME Magazine Palin Speech

I’ve emphasized the most important points in bold italics. I found this analysis a very pleasant surprise, especially considering the fact that TIME is hardly known a “Republican friendly” publication. Just for the record, let’s remind ourselves that it is commonplace in politics for both Democrats and Republicans to use speechwriters. They were used last week in Denver just as they are being used this week in St. Paul.
 

9/4/08

As Democrats and the Obama campaign scrambled to attack Sarah Palin's well-received acceptance speech at the Republican convention in St. Paul Wednesday night, they latched on early and hard to the fact that it was penned by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. But the story is more complicated than just the recycling of a Bush staffer into the McCain fold, and it tells you more about how McCain's camp intends to use Palin than it does about the continuing influence of the current White House. 

The clues are in the text itself. Scully started working on the vice-presidential speech a week ago, before he or anyone else knew who the nominee would be, and it's not hard to pick out the parts that would have been the same regardless of who delivered it. Scully unspooled two centrist themes via Palin that have been key to the McCain message: the idea that the Republican nominee puts service to country ahead of career and the notion that he's the true representative of middle America. Both themes implicitly push Obama and Biden to the left, and Scully made it explicit with lines accusing the Democrats of elitism and talking down to working class voters. 

***PERSONAL NOTE: The Democrats talk down to minorities in the same way, and this will be the subject of my next post.

Once Palin was chosen, Scully tailored the speech to the Alaska governor, highlighting her biography and using her PTA background and local political experience (contrasted so memorably with Obama's work as a "community organizer") to bolster his two themes. Where much media attention in the wake of her surprise naming has focused on Palin's views on cultural issues like abortion, the speech carefully steered away from ideological touchstones. Palin was shown as an average mainstream American looking to bring change to Washington, further bolstering McCain's overarching message of reforming the wasteful federal government. 

Scully was a good choice to help moderate Palin's right-wing image. A veteran of the early Bush White House, his specialty was crafting Bush's pro-life message in a way that would not offend soccer moms or mainstream Catholics who get nervous around some of the more extreme Evangelical rhetoric. A former protégé of the late pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Scully has a history of finding rhetorical unity for voters on the right and in the center. 

The Palin-Scully pairing is anything but a guaranteed fit, though. Palin is known as an avid hunter; Scully is best known for his vigorous defense of animal rights. A vegetarian who is regularly critical of the NRA and much of the hunting community, he is a passionate advocate for doing away with the more brutal versions of blood-sport, including aerial hunting, which Palin supports. 

Don't be surprised, though, if the combination continues. McCain wanted to pick a centrist vice president not just because he liked two of the candidates, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, but because he badly needs to close the gap in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin where he trails Obama. But he had to pick a cultural conservative like Palin because he couldn't risk alienating an already demoralized base. If Palin was viewed as the most likely right-winger to sell in the swing states, Scully is the right pick to help repackage her from a base-pleaser into a bridge-builder. 

Former Hilary Supporter at GOP Convention?

Last night, I was especially struck by something that took place hours before Sarah Palin took the stage. CNN found a middle-aged woman at the convention who was a former Hilary Clinton supporter eager to learn more about Palin and listen to her speech. Since this was a woman who is traditionally Democrat and pro-choice, the reporter naturally asked her if she was concerned at all about Palin's position on abortion. Her response was that she was not at all worried and her exact words were, "abortion rights are not going to go away." She then pointed out that at every presidential election, the Democrats use the abortion issue to "scare" women into voting for their candidate, insisting that the days of female reproductive rights are numbered with a Republican in the White House. Perhaps that after years as a Democrat herself, she's caught on to something.

I had never thought of it that way before, but then I began putting things into perspective. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. After eight years of Reagan, four years of the first Bush, and eight years of the neocon goon whose time is almost up, abortion rights are still alive and well. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court is even CLOSE to overturing Roe. Bush's two nominees, despite being solidly conservative, are not so to the extent that the far right, and probably George W. Bush himself, had hoped for. Being staunchly pro-choice myself, I insist the warning thundered by the Democrats that the two newest judges are deadset on ruling against abortion rights is simply unfounded. 

A decision from the past Supreme Court term, also dealing with women's rights, clearly demonstrates this. A female employee at Federal Express sued for gender discrimination. FedEx tried to get the suit thrown out because she had not filled out the proper "charge form" with the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. The reason this happened is that the EEOC gave her the wrong form. This woman thought she was filling out the proper form, when it turns out she was not.

If Bush's two nominees, Justices Roberts and Alito, were as far to the right as some people think, they would jump at any chance to throw out a gender discrimination lawsuit, even on a technicality, since they would not think very highly of employment discrimination laws in the first place. However, only Justices Scalia and Thomas, as you'd reasonably expect, jumped at this chance. Neither Roberts nor Alito joined them in their dissent, and the court ruled 7-2 (coincidentally the same margin the 1973 court decided Roe v Wade) that the woman should not be disqualified from filing her lawsuit because some incompetent EEOC employee screwed up by giving her the wrong form.

Also, even if these two newest judges were as far right as some still claim, that would only mean four votes to overturn Roe v Wade, which is one short of a majority. The Democrats point out that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the strongest supporter of abortion rights on the court, is getting very old and that if she retires within the next four years and is replaced by a pro-life justice, that would give a fifth vote. This idea is comical because again, there are not four sure votes to overturn Roe (only two), and I guarantee you that there is NO WAY Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down if there is even a chance that her seat would go to a pro-life justice. I guarantee you that the woman would sooner be wheeled into court on a gurney than give her seat to anyone but an abortion rights support her.

Furthermore, even if worse comes to worse (and it won't for precisely the two reasons I've mentioned), people still don't understand what Roe v. Wade even says in the first place. If the case were ever overturned, this would NOT criminalize abortion. A court does not make the law, only interprets it. Overturning Roe would mean that an individual state would be allowed to make the decision whether or not abortion remains legal in that state. So if a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion is illegal in her state, I guarantee you that she'll have plenty of states to choose from where she could get an abortion legally. Ironically, it would in a way make freedom of choice even more expansive! Again, however no need to worry since Roe v Wade isn't even close to being overturned anyway and will not be no matter who wins the presidential election.

So the argument clearly fails, for at least those three reasons, that electing McCain and Palin will place abortion rights in jeopardy. Nonetheless, the Democrats are still pulling their typical tricks on women just to get the female vote. Thankfully, many women, including some Democrats themselves, just aren't buying it anymore. 

I suppose this teaches us all a valuable lesson: When someone warns you that "the sky is falling," remember to look up and make sure it really is.