Barack Hussein Obama is Surrendering American Sovereignty
Chuck Hagel's Astonishing Admission on Syria
December 18, 2015
The former defense secretary has exposed yet another example of the White House’s negligence.
Last week, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave his first
extended interview since resigning as Pentagon chief in November 2014.
The curated interview with Foreign Policy is worth reading in its
entirety, if for nothing else than the insights into how White House
officials and staffers micromanaged Department of Defense decisions;
Hagel claims that staffers would call generals “asking fifth-level
questions that the White House should not be involved in.” (This would
not be the first or last White House charged with this degree of
However, the most revealing moment of the interview was not an instance
of White House micromanagement, but rather indecisiveness. In September
2014, in reaction to the horrific videos of U.S. citizen beheadings
released by the self-declared Islamic State, Congress passed
legislation mandating that the Pentagon “provide assistance, including
training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted
elements of the Syrian opposition.” The most critical question
regarding this policy decision was not whether the program would be
effective—almost immediately nobody inside or outside of the Pentagon
thought it would be—but what direct military support the United States
would provide to the Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria. As I later
wrote, initial, limited support to Syrian rebels could escalate to a
Bay of Pigs situation, where the U.S.-backed rebels were easily killed
or captured, and subsequently U.S. credibility further eroded.
Astutely recognizing that this question was unresolved as the
legislation was passed, Arizona Republican John McCain asked at a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16, 2014, “will we
repel Bashar Assad’s air assets that will be attacking [the rebels]?”
The then-Pentagon chief replied, “Any attack on those that we have
trained and who are supporting us, we will help ’em.” In his recent
Foreign Policy interview, Hagel astonishingly admitted that he
improvised on the spot and came up with that highly consequential
policy declaration on his own. “We had never come down on an answer or
a conclusion in the White House. I said what I felt I had to say. I
couldn’t say, ‘No.’ Christ, every ally would have walked away from us
in the Middle East.”
If this is actually what happened, it is an extraordinary case of
strategic negligence by the White House. Whether and to what extent the
United States would provide direct military support to the Syrian
rebels who the Pentagon overtly trained and equipped was a major
component of the anti-Islamic State strategy that President Obama had
announced just six days earlier. Either Obama had not personally
decided before he made his speech or he had left it unresolved or
unclear by the time Hagel and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Martin Dempsey testified before the Armed Services
Committee. Whether due to negligence or neglect, this was not a policy
declaration that any secretary of defense should have made up on the
spot. It is one thing for the White House to consciously leave matters
unresolved publicly to retain flexibility as a situation unfolds, but
this instance of inadequate policy coordination and indecisiveness
suggests that the Obama administration had not even made a decision
internally. This is another damning anecdote that reflects on the Obama
administration’s poorly conceived and implemented approach to the
Syrian civil war and rise of the Islamic State.
Obama: Lifting of sanctions will increase Iran's ability to finance terrorists
The Jerusalem Post
In a special interview with the BBC Friday, President of the United
States Barack Obama admitted that the lifting of sanctions on Iran will
increase the Islamic Republic's ability to finance terrorist
Sitting down with the BBC's North American editor Jon Sopel, the
president touched upon a whole array of topics, devoting a considerable
portion to Iran.
"Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no
shortage of resources," the president added. "We have seen that even in
times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees
as its strategic priority."
During the interview, Obama made sure to stress that the possibility of military action remains on the table.
"Iran has proved that it is willing to change its priorities and its
strategy," he said. "We have sent a clear message to the Iranians -
though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope
that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there
is also a military option."
The president is on a full press campaign since the announcement of a
breakthrough nuclear agreement with world powers and Iran, speaking on
multiple media outlets outlining his administration's signature foreign
policy achievement thus far, which is currently under review in the US
Asked about the hurdles the agreement may face in the hands of
lawmakers who have considerable authority over its ratification,
the president said, "I am a certain that we will be able to pass the
agreement " in Congress.
Under a bill reluctantly signed into law by Obama in May, Congress has
until Sept. 17 to decide whether to approve or reject the agreement
between Iran and world powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear program in
return for sanctions relief.
Deal opponents in the pro-Israel camp believe more lawmakers can be
swayed by detailed arguments about what they see as loopholes that Iran
could use to skirt the agreement.
Pressure from AIPAC, whose members' support is widely coveted, could
also worry lawmakers up for re-election. AIPAC boasts 100,000 members.
At the same time, J Street, a smaller liberal pro-Israel group, is urging supporters to lobby Congress to support the Iran deal.
Kerry told reporters before the House meeting that the deal "will make
the region, our friends and allies, safer. It will make the world safer
... in the absence of any viable alternative."
Administration eases restrictions on asylum seekers with loose terror ties
By Judson Berger
Published February 06, 2014
The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum
seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups,
in a move one senator called "deeply alarming."
The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and
Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal
Register. It would allow some individuals who provided "limited
material support" to terror groups to be considered for entry into the
Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued
that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has
unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.
"The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable," Leahy
said in a statement. "It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees
being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and
minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of
But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security
concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum
"In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the
Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions
standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants
for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist
groups," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday.
"We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even
Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own,
altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. "What is the point of
Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its 'discretion' to
say that law simply no longer applies?" he said.
The change would apply to people the U.S. government does not consider
a threat but could nevertheless be tied to terror groups, and therefore
barred from entry. A Department of Homeland Security official said
these individuals have been "adversely affected by the broad terrorism
bars of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."
The official offered several examples of how the change might help
otherwise innocent refugees -- including a restaurant owner who served
food to an opposition group; a farmer who paid a toll to such a group
in order to cross a bridge or sell his food; or a Syrian refugee who
paid an opposition group to get out of the country.
"These exemptions cover discrete kinds of limited material support that
have adversely affected refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants and
other travelers: material support to non-designated terrorist
organizations that was insignificant in amount, provided incidentally
in the course of everyday social, commercial, or humanitarian
interactions, or provided under significant pressure," the official
The official said the change would let the administration apply the
exemptions on a "case-by-case basis" after a review that already
includes rigorous security screening. "Our screening procedures check
applicants' names and fingerprints against a broad array of records of
individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watch
list, and those of law enforcement concern," the official said.
Though the change would apply to those who helped non-designated terror
groups, Sessions noted that Al Qaeda, for example, was not officially
designated as a foreign terror organization until 1999.
Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform,
claimed the change was another effort to maximize the number of people
being allowed into the country.
"This administration no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt in
making these kinds of rule changes," he said. "The consequences are
potentially dire for ... public safety."
The Washington Times also reported Thursday that a 2009 fraud
assessment found at least 70 percent of asylum applications had signs
WHY OBAMA IS A THIRD WORLD PRESIDENT
By: Ian de Silva
Just when the furor over the socialist sentiments in President Obama’s
“you didn’t build that” speech seemed to subside, Paul Ryan has
charismatically and cogently revived the issue in his newly-minted VP
candidacy, thus rightfully keeping the issue alive as we approach the
election. But even Ryan, as articulate as he is, is omitting the
underlying point. And that point is that not only does Obama have
socialist thoughts—but he is also a Third World thinker.
While some critics may hurl any accusation at Obama without any rhyme
or reason, my assertion that he is a Third World thinker is based on my
unapologetic patriotism for America and my own immigrant experience. As
a naturalized American who grew up in the Third World, I saw firsthand
the shenanigans that Third World leaders (who should at best be called
misleaders) used on their people.
Consequently, I am much more concerned about preserving America’s
greatness than about conforming to the mindless mantra among many
minorities that this president is a great leader. He is not. I came to
America when Ronald Reagan was president. He was a great leader. And he
was a president who was unmistakably proud to be American—not a man who
went around the world apologizing for America.
A mainstay in the propaganda of Third World leaders is the relentless
assault on the wealthy—and Obama is a master at that. In fact, many
Third World leaders, despite being well-off themselves, are
particularly adept at haranguing the public into thinking that wealth
is an evil. And Obama, despite being a millionaire himself, is
inimitably adept at public castigation of the wealthy.
In fact, Obama’s Third World socialist proclivities were evident even
before he became president. Recall the famous “Joe the Plumber” moment
during the 2008 campaign, when Obama declared that he wanted to “spread
the wealth around.” That is what Third World dictators do—take things
from people who earned them and give them to those who did not.
It behooves us to take a closer look at what else he said in the recent
speech where he made the “you didn’t build that” remark. Here is what
he said about those who believe their success is due to their own
efforts: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.
You didn’t get there on your own. [Yes, he repeated it.] I’m always
struck by people who think, well, it must be because I [i.e., they] was
just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be
because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you
something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”
Even a rabid communist in a Third World banana republic could not have
done a more vehement denunciation of individual initiative than Obama
did in that speech on July 13 at Roanoke, Va. As an immigrant who
realized the American Dream with my own hard work, I am stunned by such
anti-capitalist poppycock coming from an American president.
Such open contempt for the successful is a common occurrence in the
Third World. That is why Third World countries are as destitute as they
are—for along with such contempt comes disrespect for private property,
and where private property is not respected, no private investment
takes place. And without such investment, prosperity is impossible.
Obama apparently lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the role
that individual initiative plays in American success stories. His
canonization of government as the benefactor of progress is downright
delusional. What government program helped Edison invent the light
bulb? What program helped the Wright brothers launch the first flight?
What program helped Henry Ford build his first car?
By Obama’s logic, almost anyone you ever came in contact with deserves
credit for your success. Thus, in my case, it would begin with the
pilot of the plane that brought me to America. And then the immigration
officer who inspected me. Then the landlords I rented from. Then the
banks that I borrowed from. And of course all the workers who built the
roads and bridges that connected the towns and cities where I have done
business. Oh, I forgot to mention the cashiers who bagged my food at
the grocery stores. Oops, I also forgot to include the car salesmen who
sold me the cars in which I commuted to work over the years. So, you
see how ridiculous Obama’s logic is!
It is a fact of life that before you can expect someone to help you,
you must help yourself first. You must demonstrate to others that you
are a worthy risk—for a loan, job, etc. And when such conduct brings
you success, you fully deserve it, because it was your conduct that
made others willing to lend you money, employ you, or support your
Perhaps what is most disturbing about this whole affair is the
affirmative response Obama has received in some corners. Many Americans
are unabashed in their support for what he said. Of course, they are
not a majority, but they are nevertheless a sizable portion of the
public. That in itself is sufficient evidence of how Obama has managed
to Third-Worldize the minds of many Americans.
Socialism Is as Socialism Does
By Dr. Robert R. Owens
August 31, 2012
Ronald Reagan taught us, "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's
someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an
anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Barack Obama's mentor as a young man was communist party member Frank
Marshall Davis. As a community organizer he was a follower and promoter
of the communist fellow-traveler Saul Alinsky's methods and goals. As a
professional in Hyde Park he associated with socialist radicals such as
Bill Ayers. As an up-and-coming Chicago Politician he attended the
church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an outspoken proponent of the
socialist Black Liberation Theology. As president he appointed
communist Van Jones to be one of his many Czars. Mr. Obama says he is
not a socialist. However, simple logic tells us if it looks like a duck
and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck you can be relatively
certain it's a duck.
Mr. Obama has told us that he seeks to be a transformational president
like his idol FDR. He was bold enough to tell us just days before the
election in 2008 that he would fundamentally transform America. In just
one term he has accomplished much along the way to changing us from
what we have always been into what the Progressives have always wanted
us to be.
How has Barak Obama transformed us? Into what is he transforming us? A
look at his impressive list of firsts as president of these United
States points in the direction he is herding us (lists of Mr. Obama's
firsts are found numerous places):
• First President to have a Social Security number from a state where he has never lived
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
• First President to violate the War Powers Act
• First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to require that all Americans
purchase a product from a third party as a condition of citizenship
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on
shovel-ready jobs and then joke that shovel ready wasn't quite as
shovel ready as he thought
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement
laws such as the Dream Act and Cap-n-Tradethrough executive fiat
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees
• First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (GM) to resign
• First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present
• First President to send the families of fallen service members a form letter signed with an auto-pen
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it (DOMA)
• First President to threaten insurance companies if
they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
• First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal)
• First President to fire an inspector general of
Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case
• First President to appoint 45 czars to his office
• First President to golf more than 100 times separate times in his first three and a half years in office
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing to earn it
• First President to go on multiple global "apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours
• First President to go on 16 lavish vacations,
including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his
friends paid for by the taxpayer
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense
• First President to publicly read from the Quran
& tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to
worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth
• First President to recite the Muslim call to prayer in perfect Arabic
• First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance
• First President to side with a foreign nation over one of America's 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona)
Mr. Obama is leading us from being the first among nations to being
just another vote in the United Nations. Now there's a level playing
field for you. And now it's time for another election, some say our
most important, some say perhaps our last.
In many ways this election cycle is refreshing. For generations the
Progressives have pretended to be something they are not to win
elections. They have pretended to be dedicated to the American dream of
personal liberty, economic freedom and the belief that America was
different from other nations, that as the world's first and most
enduring modern experiment in a republic based on limited government we
were exceptional. Although the policies of the Progressives have always
been at odds with this assumed identity at least every election cycle
they would tip their hat to the America of our fathers and portray
themselves as a Thomas Jefferson or an Andrew Jackson.
Therefore, 2012 is shaping up to be the election where the Progressives
cast aside their mask and run as who they are: the American version of
socialism promising to tax the rich and spread the wealth around, from
each according to their ability to each according to their need.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election on this platform the Progressives will
finally have their chance to give Americans the same kind of
cradle-to-grave utopia the happy people of Russia, China, North Korea,
and Hitler's Germany have had the fortune to endure. If Mr. Obama wins
re-election espousing the true intentions of the Progressives, to
change the constitution from a rock solid foundation for freedom into a
living document that is a dead letter, he will succeed at his vow to
fundamentally transform America.
He will fundamentally transform the dreams of our fathers for a land of
liberty and opportunity into the dreams of his father who was a
pro-communist social engineer and America will become just another
country trying to build heaven on earth by plundering some to benefit
As to his utopian beliefs and aspirations President Obama has said, "I
am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
President Reagan also told us, "Socialism only works in two places:
Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it."
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.
Illegals released by feds committed 19 murders, 142 sex crimes
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
July 31, 2012
The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to
commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted
murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a
All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was
notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its
Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them
here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three
year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the
administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be
charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and
the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities
program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the
law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program,
159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under
review, CRS said.
About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because
they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to
the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been
deported, CRS said.
Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to
commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the
Judiciary Committee said.
“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes
by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith
said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement
agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His
unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk
and costs American lives.”
Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
Secure Communities was designed to let federal officials check the
immigration records of those booked into local prisons and jails to see
if they can be deported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for
deportations, said many of those identified by Secure Communities and
detailed in the report either weren’t eligible to be deported or were
released by local officials before ICE could respond.
Spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said that given limited resources, they have to pick and choose which aliens they go after.
“Because ICE is congressionally funded to remove a limited number of
individuals each year, the agency prioritizes our enforcement efforts
on individuals whose removal has the biggest impact on public safety,
including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons,
and repeat immigration law offenders,” she said.
The Obama administration has set records for deportations, removing
about 400,000 aliens a year. But it has dramatically altered the
composition of those being deported, shifting attention away from
rank-and-file illegal immigrants and towards those who already have
criminal records or who have repeatedly broken immigration laws.
In June President Obama announced yet another policy that shields most
illegal immigrants age 30 and under from deportation. That policy won’t
fully take effect until the middle of August, but it has already had an
effect on those being deported.
Between Oct. 1 and June 16, a day after the new policy was announced,
51 percent of those ICE deported had criminal records. But in the month
after the policy was announced, the percentage of criminals being
deported jumped to 57 percent — a record high rate.
Secure Communities has come under fire from both sides of the aisle.
Many Democrats say it casts its net too wide, which means illegal
immigrants who have committed relatively minor offenses could be
deported. But Republicans, led by Mr. Smith, say the administration is
actually being too picky in those it chooses to deport, which results
in criminals being released back onto the streets to commit more crimes.
In one of the cases, the committee said, an illegal immigrant named
Evin Adonis Ortiz was identified by Secure Communities but released,
and later went on to be charged in the killing of California man.
According to the Los Angeles Daily News, police said Ortiz and two
others robbed a 68-year-old grandfather and then killed his grandson
when he tried to chase the bandits down.
Obama's "Civilian National Security Force"
05 JULY 2012 06:29 J. D. LONGSTREET
Four years ago this month -- on July 2nd, 2008 -- Obama delivered a
speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and
establishment of a "Civilian National Security Force." He further
promised it would be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well
funded as the US Military."
It is well known amongst dictators, the world over, that a private army
is necessary to control the great unwashed masses over which they force
We have seen Obama steadily assume dictatorial powers over apathetic
Americans in just three and a half years. He has all but hushed
the people's voice in government, the US Congress, by simply by-passing
them and ruling by executive order -- just like any other two-bit
dictator. Some feel even the US Supreme Court has lost the steel
from its collective spine under withering pressure from our budding
domestic dictator, Obama.
If one did not know better, one would think there is a move afoot to
institute a complete Marxist insurgency in America with Obama at the
top -- and -- at the leading edge.
"The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America
today." ... Retired Lt. General William G."Jerry" Boykin says in a new
video he has just released . Boykin is a decorated former Delta
Force Commander, US Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, and a recipient
of the Purple Heart.
General Boykin is troubled by Obama's promise of a "Civilian
National Security Force." Boykin says the formation of such
a force is included in the thousands of pages of the Obamacare Law,
AKA: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act." Boykin says such a police force would be at Obama's
disposal and is similar to national police forces socialist tyrants
used to complete their revolutions.
Then -- there is the expected drive by Obama to regulate private gun
ownership within the US, plus the nationalization of some leading
industries, and even stricter regulation of key financial sectors of
the US economy -- and a pattern begins to emerge.
Boykin says all these moves by Obama fit the model used by societies when they move to Marxism.
OBAMA TIED TO ARCHITECT OF U.S. COLLAPSE
New Party leader planned to bring about 'crisis' of overloaded welfare state
WND, June 16, 2012
Frances Fox Piven, co-architect of a strategy to overload the U.S.
welfare system to precipitate a transformative economic crisis, was an
early builder of the socialist-leaning New Party.
Scores of other New Party activists, meanwhile, have been tied to President Obama.
The now-defunct controversial third party is coming under increased
scrutiny after new information further indicates Obama was a New Party
The New Party sought to elect members to public office with the aim of
moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new
political party with a socialist agenda.
In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid
reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature
listing Obama as a member.
Last week, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National
Review Online, reported on documentation from the updated records of
Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively
establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.
Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly
support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
A July 20, 1992, article in The Nation magazine by New Party founder
Joel Rogers, meanwhile, lays out the case for the establishment of the
party and lists several of the group’s early founders and activists.
In that article, titled “Out with the Old Politics, in with the New
Party,” Rogers cites Piven as an early activist in the formation of the
New Party, which he describes as a “social democratic” party.
Piven, together with her late husband, activist and fellow Columbia
professor Richard Cloward, developed the Cloward-Piven strategy, which
called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system.
The duo’s stated goal was to agitate a financial crisis that would
collapse the U.S economy and replace it with a national system with “a
guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”
Other early New Party activists listed by Rogers have ties to Obama.
Those activists and others were also listed as New Party “builders” in
the party’ newsletter, the New Party News.
Some of the key New Party activists with Obama ties include:
• Madeline Talbott, listed as national field director
of ACORN. Talbott is a former colleague of Obama’s from his 1990s
Project Vote! Chicago Coalition, which worked directly with ACORN when
Talbott was ACORN’s lead Illinois organizer. She has also written about
working with Obama as a fellow Chicago community organizer in the
1990s. Obama himself has linked his work on Project Vote to Talbott’s
Illinois ACORN. When he sought the endorsement of ACORN for his 2008
presidential bid, Obama said, “When I ran Project Vote, the voter
registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of
• Manning Marable, a socialist Columbia University
professor. Marable in 1998 helped found the Black Radical Congress,
where he worked with controversial race scholar Cornel West, an Obama
friend and 2008 campaign adviser who introduced the politician at his
first campaign stop in Harlem.WND disclosedthat during that 2007
introduction, West first railed on stage against the “racist” U.S.
criminal justice system of the “American empire.”In 2007, Marable was
elected chairman of Movement for a Democratic Society, or MDS, an arm
of the radical Students for a Democratic Society from which the Weather
Underground terrorist organization later splintered. Some Weathermen
terrorists, including Bill Ayers, participated in Marable’s MDS.
• Marxist activist Carl Davidson. Davidson later
co-founded Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq, the group that invited
Obama to speak at its Oct. 2, 2002, anti-war rally in Chicago – an
address that was said to propel Obama to national attention.
• Quentin Young, key organizer of the Physicians for
a National Health Program. Young reportedly was present at a 1995
meeting at the home of Bill Ayers that was said to have launched
Obama’s political career. He was an adviser to Obama in the late 1990s.
Young himself took credit in March 2009 in an interview with the
Democracy Now network for “turning Barack Obama into a ‘single payer’
advocate when the president was an Illinois state senator.”
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as
electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets
simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party
disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a
shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a
universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care,
child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and
training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs
to ensure gender equity.”
The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking
and financial system – including popular election of those charged with
public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over
their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of
America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a
breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local
Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event
sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the
WND first reported on the event in 2010.
Obama listed as New Party member
In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own
literature listing several new members of the New Party, including
Last week, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama
signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself
with the New Party while in office.
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol
Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as
stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for
state senator in 1995.”
Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Obama Threat to Capitalism
By Sharon Sebastian
June 13, 2012
The battering of freedom, faith and the economy under Barack Obama has
been relentless. It has been a busy first term for the President. Obama
is learning that no man, president or king, can neither dictate faith
nor douse the flames of freedom in America. Obama's severest blow to
the nation has been, thus far, economic. As one destructive regulation
after another emanate out of the Obama White House, businesses across
America realize that they are under siege. Question: What is it about
free-market capitalism that Barack Obama so dislikes? The answer: It
Socialism is the government forcibly taking from those who have earned
what they have and giving it to others. Crushing initiative, innovation
and self-reliance, it foments class envy, racial strife and government
welfare as it devours a nation. A Socialistic government controls the
economy, property and natural resources to the exclusion of individual
prosperity and achievement. Socialism leads to other oppressive forms
of government. Communism requires class warfare. Nazism requires race
warfare. Socialism requires a combination of both class and race
warfare. All suppress rights and freedoms. If left unchecked, all lead
to fascism with government's iron-grip controlling all facets of life,
both public and private.
If given a second term, Obama will finalize his attack on American
capitalism, replace it with a repressive form of Socialism and finish
the job he has begun. Free-market capitalism is the opposite of
oppressive systems. Unlike Obama's economic policies, free-market
capitalism is the real "stimulus" for jobs and national growth. So,
what is the appeal of Socialism to Barack Obama? For starters: Control.
Power. Authority over who succeeds in the marketplace. Limitation of
rights to those voicing opposition and elimination of Constitutional
checks and balances by the judicial and legislative branches of
government. Obama's ultimate goal is to bring America, its citizens,
its resources, its laws, its courts and its Constitution under a
one-world, socialistic government. First, he must kowtow the American
people. If re-elected, that strategy will emerge in 2013 to be
implemented by his 40-plus politburo of unelected Czars.
Seeking to grow big government, Obama calls for more government jobs.
He callously brushes off the anemic, over-regulated private jobs sector
as he declares it is "doing fine." Stanley Kurtz of National Review
reports that Obama's hostility to free-market capitalism was evident in
the mid-1990s: "On the evening of January 11, 1996...Barack Obama
formally joined the 'New Party,' which was deeply hostile to the
mainstream of the Democratic Party and even to American capitalism. In
2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his
potentially damaging tie to this third party."
What this president cannot hide is his penchant for crony capitalism.
He has been quick to award business contracts and "redistribute" tax
monies to his friends and political cronies. Evidence of that are his
disastrous forays into monumental "green" failures. CBS News reports
that, "At least 12 of Obama's favored clean energy companies are in
financial trouble after being collectively approved for more than $6.5
billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy."
Bankrupt Solyndra reportedly shed $528 million and 1100 jobs in 2
years. Is Obama's Justice Department doing an earnest forensics audit
of these companies' books to follow the money? Will the White House
continue to ignore Congressional subpoenas and withhold documents amid
speculations that possible illegalities may lead to political slush
funds? Are Obama's cliquish pet-projects-among-friends above the law?
A powerful element of Socialism is that those in power can be selective
about enforcement. Earlier this year, it was revealed that Obama's EPA
Region 6 administrator, Al Armendariz, gave a 2010 speech about his
"philosophy of enforcement" against business owners that are not
compliant with the Obama administration's stringent regulations: "It's
kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages… They'd go
into little Turkish towns, they'd find the first five guys they'd run
into, and they'd crucify them and then, you know, that town was really
easy to manage over the next few years." Then, there is Ron Bloom,
Obama's first Manufacturing Czar, who held powerful influence with the
President, who said on video, "Free enterprise is nonsense."
Additionally, Bloom commented that: "We kind of agree with Mao
[murderous Communist Chinese dictator Mao Tse-tung] that political
power comes largely from the barrel of the gun." And, as always, there
is Van Jones. Jones is the hand-picked, self-professed Communist who
Obama chose to head-up his national green jobs initiative that is at
the heart of Obama's economic "recovery." What is it about a
self-professed Communist, anti-capitalist, heading up his national jobs
recovery plan that Obama does not get? Is it ignorance or
premeditation? Revealing a pattern that is anti-business and deemed
politically risky during Obama's bid for re-election, all three men
have been eased out of their positions under Obama.
One of Obama's staunch supporters, leading Senate Democrat Charles
Schumer (NY-D) inadvertently warned American tax-payers and businesses
of what is to come if Obama is re-elected. In regard to increased taxes
on the rich, Schumer declared, "You've got to start somewhere,"
signaling that higher taxes on middle-income Americans will be levied
post-election. If history is any judge, Obama will dole out
middle-income tax revenues to big unions and crony capitalists while
leaving government fraud and waste unchecked. Schumer and his fellow
Progressive-Democrats refuse to acknowledge that when rising taxes
exceed the capacity for businesses and citizens to pay, the money
eventually runs out for all dependent on government -- including
government workers and civil union employees such as police and fire
fighters. Under Obama's plan, all will eventually share the equal
deprivation that is Socialism.
In The Freeman Ideas on Liberty, published by The Foundation for Economic Education, Mark J. Perry wrote:
"Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised
prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and
tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was
equal in his or her misery. In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or
chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may
show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as
the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the
initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its
pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always
proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery."
The axiom that, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results" does not apply to the Obama
administration. By doubling down on its failed programs and policies,
it is getting exactly the results it wants -- the transfer from
free-market capitalism to socialism. That it does so in pursuit of
unrestricted power reveals that Obama elevates his socialist ideology
above the well-being, prosperity and security of all Americans.
Obama is discarding the Constitution in favor of International Law
The article points to the abuses
by the Obama Presidency regarding International Treaties (LOST, ATT)
and the loss of American sovereignty.
by Kevin C. Caffrey
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Ever since President Obama has
become the leader of the free world he has decided to rip away at
America in favor of the United Nations and International Law. It is sad
but true. Every chance President Obama gets he is overriding the United
States Constitution for instance Executive Order 13563. This order
under the guise of regulatory cooperation leaves import and export
regulation by American companies and foreign countries in the hands of
international law to decide what America can do, or not do regarding
free-trade. A regulation is a law. In the President’s Executive Order
13563 he has standardized international law between the United States
and foreign countries regarding free-trade. In other words the
President is leaving American trade regulation (law) in the hands of
the United Nations, and its manifestation and creation of international
law. This is against the American Constitution and amounts to treason.
The reason this is important is because of the current fight over LOST
the Law of the Sea Treaty it is an issue that must not be ratified by
the Senate. The President and his allies hope to give up America’s
rightful nautical sea limits of 200 miles. This is so the United
Nations and poor countries can benefit from all the resources oil,
fishing etc. taken from these areas because of the LOST treaty and
gives the money to the United Nations. In the long run this will amount
to trillions of dollars that President Obama is going to take from
America's children and give it to the world. The President is going to
leave are children trillions in Federal debt and Entitlement debt; if
he is re-elected. Why give away trillions of dollars that are children
will need in order to pay that debt? It amounts to a double whammy for
Americans. It appears that President Obama is attempting to tie America
to International law like Gulliver’s travels, the giant who was tied
down by six-inch people (United Nation countries). This cannot be the
American people’s fate and Americans need to be alerted about President
Obama’s plans of an International Socialist America.
In a Los Angeles Times article it
can’t be said better than by Edwin Meese III: “To secure navigational
freedom, territorial rights and all national and international
interests addressed in LOST; we must maintain the strength of the U.S.
Navy, not look to an anachronistic pact that is intent on advancing a
one-world agenda.” The entire article discusses how President Reagan
was completely against this treaty even before he was president. Ronald
Reagan in a radio address stated: “ … he asserted that "no national
interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds
of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." Donald Rumsfeld will
testify next Thursday (6/14) in front of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee whose Chairman is Senator John Kerry (D-Mass). Donald
Rumsfeld will speak in the afternoon after the Foreign Relations
Committee listens to some current military officials [Emphasis added]
or Obama puppets in this writer’s view. These military officials will
tell the committee that instant ratification of the treaty is needed in
order to stop the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. Rumsfeld
will comment on what he wrote in his memoirs in which he stated:
“But it had grown into something considerably more ambitious, with a
proviso that would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of
international waters … into the hands of what was ominously called the
International Seabed Authority.” In other words the United Nations and
third world countries will have the authorization and international law
to tax and have the money flow directly to the poor nations of the
world. This is instead of the United States who are the rightful owners
if this treaty is not signed. In an earlier hearing the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey was asked by Senator Chris Coons
(D-Del) and paraphrasing his question to the General: Will failure to
ratify this treaty LOST in anyway affect the United States ability to
project force in this region? Gen. Martin Dempsey answered
unequivocally: “Our ability to project force will not deteriorate," he
said, if we refrain from ratifying the treaty.”
Perhaps another more simplified
illustration of President Obama’s willingness to override Americans
Constitutional rights is his willingness to do away with our Second
Amendment rights through the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty
will be heard in New York this July and its international law jargon
will not be public nor will the Senate know the law behind this treaty
until after it is completed. This gives the Senate very little time to
promote its proper role as to advice and consent before taking a vote
on the treaty. “In addition to the fundamental problem posed for U.S.
sovereignty by the rise of aspirational treaties (of which the ATT is
only one example)… [The fear we as Americans must be aware of] The ATT
raises the broader problem of the rise of transnational law, whose
advocates argue that even treaties not ratified by the Senate are part
of customary international law, and thus of U.S. federal law, and that
U.S. courts should re-interpret the Constitution accordingly.” The
article by the Heritage Foundation is frightening in how this current
administration is chaining America to International Treaty’s. For
instance, the environmental treaty’s that may have a great impact on
America’s ability to compete with foreign countries in free-trade. This
is because other nations may not sign the International Treaties, and
thus, like China, and other rogue nation-states who will not adhere to
the air and water environmental concerns of this planet will be able to
produce goods at a less cost than American businesses. This is not to
mention the possible Global Warming policies being pushed by liberal
Americans at the national level, in the hopes to muscle America into
accordance with the future climate control treaty’s. In fact Obama in
2009 already had very ambitious U.N. treaty ratification plan outlined
that we are now seeing the brunt of. It will be up to the United States
Senate not sign these treaty’s for the good of American sovereignty.
There are petitions on line for individuals to sign in order to let
their congressional representatives no how they feel about the various
treaties that are up for ratification. It is up to the American people
to let their voices be heard about their American Constitution and its
importance to them. Our Founding Fathers were wise in writing the
Constitution in that they made sure it would take two-thirds of the
Senate to approve an International Treaty.
Obama's 'Land of the LOST
May. 28, 2012
What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new
pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, aka
The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected
by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the
United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of
the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan
officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central,
and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at
the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the
The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a
massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries,
impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high
seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late
'60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited
soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy
save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national
security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be
subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and
While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of
the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you
guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports
that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected
from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out
to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of
environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away
from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an
international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would
be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.
LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama
administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through
executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities
over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable
use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a
27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is
specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in
accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in
the Law of the Sea Convention."
The panel is chaired by radical green science czar John Holdren
(notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization
and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather
catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his
population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council
on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate
boss of disgraced green jobs czar/self-avowed communist Van Jones).
Other members include Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the
left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed
draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational
fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's
drilling moratorium report.
It is not hyperbole to expose LOST's socialist roots. Meddling Marxist
Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory
scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted,
"rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in
the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and
Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies."
WORD FAITH INDEX
CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX