Andrew Bolt:

The victor is vilified, and the jackals steal his laurels for their own:

It was Obama what won Iraq

ZIP has this:

Shocka! Obama Argued For a “Straightforward Marxist-Leninist Revolution” While in College…

But, but, but he gives such great speeches about hope and change, there’s no way he could be a radical Marxist….

But hey, even on Fox,  O’Reilly & Hannity just can’t find any ‘proof’ that the Obumbler is a raving commie jackass…..

Front Page Interview, Pamela Geller: Organizing Kids for Obama

Parents, warn your kids. Don’t let Barack Obama recruit his drones from your family.

Obama’s National Defence Review ignores Iran and Islam in favour of… climate change

Believe it or not: Islam isn’t mentioned once (not a single time) in a 128 page document outlining national security threats? Stunning, even by the Obama administration’s standards… Telegraph UK

(Newsmax)- Dr. John C. Drew, a grant writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, Calif., tells Newsmax he met Obama in 1980 when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles. Drew had just graduated from Occidental and was attending graduate school at Cornell University.

Drew’s then girlfriend, Caroline Boss—now Grauman-Boss—knew Obama because she shared classes with him at Occidental.

During Christmas break, Drew says he was at Grauman-Boss’ home in Palo Alto when Obama came over with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, his roommate from Pakistan.

“He was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.

“The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”

Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.”

In contrast, “My more pessimistic Marxist perspective indicated this was not a realistic possibility, that we really hadn’t seen a sort of complete revolution take place anywhere in Western Europe, and that this isn’t what had happened in more socialistic Germany or in France,” Drew says. “He was pretty persistent, that I didn’t know what I was talking about.”

Drew’s viewpoint that a revolution was unrealistic “made me very unpopular that evening. It was considered a reactionary and insensitive thing to argue,” says Drew.

Rest here>>>

Infiltration Watch:

How in the f*#kc did everything get so perverted?

Who Is Human Rights Watch’s Joe Stork?

Noah Pollak

He is, of course, the author of last week’s Human Rights Watch report, which claimed that IDF soldiers murdered white-flag-waving Palestinian civilians in cold blood. He is also the deputy director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa programs. We already knew from NGO Monitorthat he has—to put it politely—a rather extremist history on all matters Israel.

But now there is a better accounting. Ben-Dror Yemini of the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv has a blockbuster article laying out the ugly truth of Stork’s history. The Hebrew is available here; below is a complete English translation. That HRW would place in a senior position someone who has written in explicit support of terrorism against Israel, lauded the murder of Israeli athletes at Munich in 1972 as providing “an important boost in morale among Palestinians,” and stated that “Zionism may be defeated only by fighting imperialism”—this should be the final verdict on a cretinous organization’s already tattered credibility.

AUTHOR OF REPORT AGAINST ISRAEL SUPPORTED MUNICH MASSACRE
By Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma’ariv, 16.8.09, p. 13

Joe Stork, a senior official in Human Rights Watch, which accuses the IDF of killing Palestinians who waved white flags, is a fanatical supporter of the elimination of Israel. He was a friend of Saddam, ruled out negotiations and supported the Munich Massacre, which “provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians.”

Read it all

The Left Has Never Been Interested in Creating Wealth

..but you’re only interested in Michael Jackson, right?

by Dennis Prager

There is only one good thing about the Obama administration’s attempts to nationalize most health care and to begin to control Americans’ energy consumption through cap-and-trade: clarity about the left. These attempts are enabling more and more Americans to understand the thinking and therefore the danger of the left.

The left has its first president — with the possible exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — and for the first time controls the Democratic Party and both houses of Congress. In the name of compassion for the sick and the poor and in the name of preventing worldwide environmental catastrophe, it is attempting to remake America.

• Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill – then lies
•  Campbell Brown:  ”CNN “only one still doing journalism” - 
• Case study in hate: the Guardian
• The “wise Latina” nightmare: SOTOMAYOR, FREEDOM, AND THE LAW: Tyranny begins in the legislature
• Obama’s calculations were wrong, says Israeli editor Amnon Lord. Obama is despised in Israel.

In so doing some principles of the left are becoming clearer to more Americans:

Principle One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth. The left is no more interested in creating wealth than Christians are in creating Muslims or Muslims in creating Christians. The left is interested in redistributing wealth, not creating it. The left spends the wealth that private enterprise and entrepreneurial risk-taking individuals create.

• The Violent Left, Part 1
• The Violent Left, Part 2

The left does not perceive that poverty is the human norm and therefore asks, “Why is there poverty?” instead of asking the economic question that matters: Why is there wealth? And the obvious result of the left’s disinterest in why wealth is created is that the left does not know how to create it.

Principle Two: The reason the left asks why there is poverty instead of why there is wealth is that the left’s preoccupying ideal is equality — not economic growth. And those who are preoccupied with equality are more troubled by wealth than by poverty. Ask almost anyone on the left — not a liberal, but a leftist like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — which society they consider more desirable, a society in which all its members were equally lower middle class or one in which some were poor, most were middle class, and some were rich (i.e., America today). And whatever they say, in their hearts, the further left they are the more they would prefer the egalitarian society.

Principle Three: The left everywhere seeks to make as big and powerful a state as possible. It does so because only the state can redistribute society’s wealth. And because only a strong and powerful state can impose values on society. The idea of small government, the American ideal since its inception, is the antithesis of the left’s ideal.

The cap-and-trade bill’s control of American energy and the “ObamaCare” takeover of American health care will mean an unprecedented expansion of the state. Added to increased taxes and the individual becomes less and less significant as the state looms ever larger. Americans will be left to decide little more than what they do with vacation time — just as Western Europeans do. Other questions are largely left to the state.

Principle Four: The left imposes its values on others whenever possible and to the extent possible. That is why virtually every totalitarian regime in the 20th century was left-wing. Inherent to all left-wing thought is a totalitarian temptation. People on the left know that not only are their values morally superior to conservative values, but that they themselves are morally superior to conservatives. Thus, for example, the former head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, could say in all seriousness, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, we don’t think children ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Therefore, the morally superior have the right, indeed the duty, to impose their values on the rest of us: what light bulbs we use, what cars we drive, what we may ask a prospective employee, how we may discipline our children, and, of course, how much of our earnings we may keep.

It is dishonest to argue that the right wants to impose its values to anywhere near the extent the left does. This can be demonstrated to a fifth-grader: Who wants more power — those who want to govern a big state or those who want to govern a small state?

The president of the United States and the much of the Democratic Party embody these left-wing principles. Right now, America’s only hope of staying American rather than becoming European lies in making these principles as clear as possible to as many Americans as possible. The left is so giddy with power right now, we actually have a chance.

*  Wall Street Banker: “I’m surprised!   He’s a real class warrior…”

* Must read: Abdullah’s Fifty-Seven State Solution

                                           Pic from ZIP

Some of Barack Obama’s richest supporters fear they have elected a “class warrior” to the White House, who will turn America’s freewheeling capitalism into a more regulated European system.  (Perhaps they should be giving their  money to Winds of Jihad before supporting a Marxist Muslim candidate…..) More>>

Pamela from Atlas:

More O-control of monumental proportion. Not only does this communist (Obama) want to be able to turn off the internet in America at his discretion, now he wants to be able to stop cell phone communication at his discretion.

The prison thing is laughable. Prisoners cannot have cell phones. And should one get past prison security? Hardly reason enough to give Obama’s thug force the power to shut down cell phone communciation. Talk about exception making bad law. He thinks we are frighteningly stupid.

You have to ask yourself, what is this dictatorial wannbee planning?

• Freedom is Not a Pendulum

Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. 

Andrew Jackson

ANNAPOLIS — Gov. Martin O’Malley plans to ask federal regulators to allow Maryland to hold a cell-phone jamming demonstration at a state prison to show the effectiveness of stopping inmate cell-phone use, which has been a safety threat in prisons around the nation.

The Federal Communications Commission can give federal agencies permission to jam cell-phone signals, but the Communications Act of 1934 doesn’t allow state and local agencies to use the technology, which prevents cell-tower transmissions from reaching the targeted phone.

“Current attempts to ensure that cell phones stay out of prisons can easily be foiled and must be supplanted by the best technology available,” Mr. O’Malley wrote in a letter to Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, who is co-sponsoring legislation in Congress to legalize cell-phone jamming at state and local prisons.

Neal Boortz

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” These are the friends that Obama says he “chose carefully.” 

Somehow, at the same time, he’s planning a “civilian national security force” that is as powerful and well-funded as the US military: Obama outlines plan for national service. Will it be his own private Gestapo? Will Obama elevate the thugs from the Nation of Islam to a hit squad against dissenters?/ed

* Barack Hussein hires numerous Nation of Islam members as part of his campaign staff.

WoJ illustrator Shem was not happy with the comments on his latest cartoon, here is the improved version and his comment:

“due to comments made about my style being “too kind”, i have refined a recent cartoon to offer to the snarling public”.
unkindly yours
shem 

The Obaminator: a fraud like this one?

Other news: Qatar joins the club of howlers against freedom of speech; no critique of Islam, or else…

Islamic science watch:  Bayer Invented Its Cure for AIDS on the Basis of a Hadith by Prophet Muhammad about the Wings of Flies

Talk is cheap: U.S. experts and leaders suggest “talks” with Taliban

Iran’s children are the enemy:  Plight of Iran’s death-row youngsters

Muslim Student Association (MSA) at San Diego Mesa College calls Obama, the “half black kafir”

 

Socialists encourage voter fraud: The Gap:  “Vote twice”?

OBAMA’S ATTRACTION TO MARXISM

Finally, someone ELSE is talking about his first book.

Now … first of all. You need to understand that what I’ll be talking about in this segment is totally and completely off limits. You’re going to read some notes about Barack Obama’s past statements and associations .. negative statements and negative associations. You will not read about these associations in the mainstream media. That would be because the mainstream media – and by that I mean the Beltway and New York City media – are totally and completely dedication to the election of Barack Obama as our next president. For the reporters and editors that comprise what used to be our most trusted source for news all pretentions of objectivity have been out the window. The new standards for reporting a news story are who, what, when, where, how and will it hurt Barack Obama. If the story can hurt Obama, and if it can be quietly killed, so it shall be.

Question for you, dear listener. If someone could come up with something that John McCain wrote a book or an article about 20 years ago in which he detailed his attraction to members of the Ku Klux Klan during his college years? Do you think for a minute that this would not be at the top of the front page of every newspaper in the country? Not to mention leading every television newscast.

But what if we have a candidate writing about his attraction to Marxism during his college years? News? Well, if that person is going to be on the presidential ballot on election day, you would think it would be news. Well .. that person IS on the ballot on election day, and it is most certainly NOT news.

Now I’ve been telling you this for months. But who am I? Just a radio talk show host without a television show. But I read Barack Obama’s “Dreams From my Father” several months ago … and there they were; Barack’s expressions of affection for his Marxist and socialist friends and mentor of his college days and before.

Finally, it’s becoming news. Well .. news to some outlets like the one liberals just love to hate, Fox News. Here’s your link to a story appearing yesterday on FoxNews.com. The title is “Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days.”

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully,” the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” These are the friends that Obama says he “chose carefully.” That’s carefully?

Obama’s interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called “the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union.”

“At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature.”

“Sometimes attended” socialist conferences? Oh… and by the way, they were selling Marxist stuff at the entrance. Oh, and another thing, one of my mentors, Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist. But hey … I’m clean.

Question to Obama, if you were so careful with your friends in college, why wouldn’t you continue to use the same level of judgment when choosing your friends to help you get elected … i.e. Bill Ayers? Hey, maybe you chose him, and Jeremiah Write just as carefully, right?

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME WHEN OBAMA HAS ADVOCATED FOR LESS GOVERNMENT?

I didn’t think so. MSNBC published an “analysis” of the campaign by Howard Fineman. It is clear that Fineman, like the rest of his mainstream media cohorts, is in the tank for Barack Obama. And he is just doing his job to make sure that he gets elected next week. So here is Fineman’s advice to Barack Obama supporters: Stop predicting that the Democrats will sweep into the White House and Congress come January with a mandate to expand Big Government … you are going to scare away swing voters. And even if Obama wins, these swing voters are going to be skeptical of Obama which will underscore his ability to rule as a “uniter”!

So what Fineman is basically advocating is that Barack Obama needs to lie to the voters about the true nature of his socialist policies. Obama needs to tell voters that “he doesn’t like government for its own sake, but for the sake of individuals and families. He has to keep explaining that he wants to put money in a hundred million pockets and purses (even those of the top 5 percent or so whom he’d have pay more in taxes) so that all of us, even the rich, can benefit from a thriving economy. He has to make sure that he isn’t advocating government-run — in contrast to government-aided — health care … he also needs to reassure voters that he will not necessarily march in lockstep with resurgent Democrats who will want to launch a top-to-bottom New New Deal and reverse the Reagan Revolution 28 years after it took place.”

Are you listening to this, folks? Tell me how a man who is proposing $800 billion in new spending is someone who doesn’t like government for its own sake. Tell me how he is going to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of people who don’t even pay taxes. I’ll tell you how, by taxing the achievers, by taxing the small businesses who create most of the jobs in this country … tell me how our economy is going to thrive if Barack Obama uses your tax dollars to give hand outs to people who do not pay taxes. How is our economy going to thrive if the government gives to those who are not the achievers. Let me know how many times you have gone to a poor person asking for a job. And will someone please tell me what the benefits would be of a “government-aided” healthcare system? Where has that worked?

This MSNBC article gets even worse, folks. The new line that is emerging is that Barack Obama’s beliefs in wealth redistribution aren’t all that bad – because the government already redistributes wealth. Are you really buying this? Here’s an example from this article by Howard Fineman: “We know that we need government. In one way or another, almost every American politician is or was a ‘redistributionist.’ We do it all the time. Redistributing is a good bit of what government in fact does, for better or worse. Every time we monkey with the tax code or federal spending we are ‘redistributing’ benefits —whether it is to welfare recipients or to the top bracket, or to one region or industry versus another.”

Since when did your wealth become a “benefit” for the government to redistribute? I believe that wealth is something that you earn. A “benefit”, to the best of my knowledge, implies an act of kindness or something that promotes well-being. My wealth does not belong to the government, therefore it is not the government’s job to take it in order to be kind or promote well-being.

MORE REDISTRIBUTION FROM OBAMA?

Something else has surfaced from Obama’s past. In 1996, Obama apparently spoke at a meeting for the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here’s a recap of what Obama had to say at the meeting:

Barack Obama observed that Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in the 1960s wasn’t simply about civil rights but demanded jobs as well. Now the issue is again coming to the front, but he wished the issue was on the Democratic agenda not just on [Pat] Buchanan’s.

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities”, not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is “human capital development”. By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a “workforce preparation strategy”. Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy”, Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

What is it going to take folks? Don’t you see what we have here? This man is a dedicated leftist who is really really fond of basic Marxist ideas, including redistribution of wealth! He has no appreciation for free enterprise. Everything to him is about government. Only government can provide. Only government can determine who has what. Only government can solve problems. How in the hell can the people of a (supposedly) free nation take this man and elevate him to the position of president?

Our Republic is threatened by this man and his ideas. Time to mature and think about what you’re going to do next week.

JOE THE PLUMBER BACKS MCCAIN

Joe the Plumber is learning the hard way that his 15-minutes of fame may be over. In the last presidential debate, all the media could talk about was Joe the Plumber. Now with the election less than a week away, Ted Stevens has been indicted, the stock market is a rollercoaster … Joe the Plumber missed his chance to really make a case for McCain. Do you remember the last major media reporting on Joe the Plumber? They reported three things: he isn’t a licensed plumber, he owes taxes, and he still hadn’t decided who he was going to vote for. That was a big ego blow to the McCain campaign. Their “it” guy wouldn’t come out and endorse him.

Well Joe Wurzelbacher finally came out and said he is voting for McCain because he believes Obama would turn this country into a socialist nation. Another interesting point, Joe also agreed that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel.” Why aren’t more voters – not just Jewish voters – upset about Obama’s policies on Israel and Iran? It’s because they are too wrapped up in Obama idol worship to think about the true consequences of their vote.

Time to crank up the government computers and feed the media more dirt on Good Ole’ Joe.