Don't Underestimate The WILL of The American People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFFwyyjZC8&feature=email

Got Goosebumps?

The Democratic Socialists of America

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society. For some disturbing reading follow this link: http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html There is an article in AmeriPac that alleges they have documentation that President Obama was a member of the DSA throughout the 90's. Now isn't that just great! Here's that article: Obama An Active Marxist-Socialist in the 1990's Socialist Energy CZAR Friend of Obama Jones Resigns An inept, inexperienced and dangerous Obama White House was caught skipping around the safe guards for cabinet positions when a self avowed communist Van Jones was appointed by his friend Obama as Energy CZAR. Jones has now been forced to resign from self inflicted wounds. The White House hid Jones' extremist history until it was exposed and now continues inexplicably stand by him. The last straw for Jones was being caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He admitted after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive." Was this just an amateurish mistake by a White House that is just getting its feet wet or part of the Socialist agenda that Obama signed on for in 1996? Not hardly and AmeriPAC has been sounding the alarm for a year. Is Obama hiding a socialist or communist agenda? In spite of all the evidence Obama has denied or minimized these affiliations with hard-left figures, denied his membership in these Marxist political parties, and denied holding these beliefs. Obama's friend Jones did not get off the hook when he flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with reports about him and said "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever." Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party. Web Bloggers Unearthed the Evidence Buried Deep by a Liberal Media that Calls Obama God. Socialist "New Party" Connections to Obama included in this document: Obama member of the Socialist Party Obama contract with the Socialist Party Obama support of and by the Socialist Party Obama Socialist Party connection to ACORN Obama Connection to ACORN Obama Connection to Castro William Ayers Connection to the Socialist Party William Ayers Connection to Castro President Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party during the 1990s, according to new evidence unearthed by web bloggers. Obama received the Socialist party's endorsement for his state Senate run in 1996. Everything is documented at websites within the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party archives. There is no conjecture; no guessing the fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party. Will the mainstream media cover what once were allegations but which now appear to be proven facts? WE MUST FORCE THEM TO DO IT! The Media refuses to cover the Story we Must Send Emails do Video Ads and Full Page Ads in National Newspapers. Reports last summer in 2008 that Obama was associated with the New Party were vigorously denied by the Obama campaign and the New Party, but researchers examining internet archives have found New Party documents clearly indicating Obama was a member of the party, received its endorsement and encouraged Party members to work with him in the Illinois statehouse. "Progressive Populist" a socialist magazine, in November 1996 recognized that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party. "New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races... New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. " The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter. "The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization... The New Party has continued to solidify this base..." "winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NEW PARTY membership meeting on April 11th 1996 to express their gratitude. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration." Part of the ACORN connection described later. Senator Obama Signed a CONTRACT WITH THE CHICAGO SOCIALIST PARTY agreeing to maintain a relationship with the Marxist-led party during his senate term. In the March - April, 1996 Edition of New Ground 45 in an article entitled, A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity: Employment and Survival in Urban America By Bob Roman clearly states the Obama New Party connection. Written in the article is that Obama accepted NEW PARTY support and must sign a contract with the NEW PARTY where "the contract mandates that they (Obama) must have a visible and active relationship with the NEW PARTY". The NEW PARTY's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NEW PARTY political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NEW PARTY. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NEW PARTY. Obama was an approved and supported NEW PARTY candidate. On the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) website is a description of their political perspective called Where We Stand. It says, in part, *We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. *We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships. The New Party was active in the United States from 1992 to 1998. The Party's Chicago chapter included a large number of Maoist and communist members, and a large number of members of the leftist organizing group ACORN. (There's a surprise!) Yes the same ACORN and Obama that have helped to create the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression are figures at the center of the high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN to apply socialism to the free market and redistribute housing wealth. Yes, Mr. Obama knows a great deal about the mess. He is a central figure in the left-wing ACORN exploitation of financial institutions and pressuring them to make high risk loans. The very same left-wing ACORN was guilty of voter fraud in the last presidential election and appears to be involved in voter Obama voter fraud all across the US in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada where according to the Wall Street Journal state election officials raided the offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as Acorn. There will be whining and crying from the socialist liberal left about McCarthyism and guilt by association but we are entitled to know the political affiliations of a candidate for the nation's highest office. The American people have a right to know what their presidents truly espouse, and we have a right to know the truth about what our presidents have done in their lives it goes strait to the issue of character and principles that go into leading as the President of the United States. We are told to ignore the past and to simply trust him on Obama's intentions for the future. I would have a hard time mustering that trust for any political figure; to extend that trust to a figure with a track record of belonging to socialist political groups and lying about that membership would be a dangerous folly. At best Obama is just unaware and being used, but how can we have a president that is dumb enough to get involved with a bunch of radical socialists sign a contract and not know what it means. Even worse Obama is smart knows exactly what he is doing and has adopted the Marxist-Socialist agenda of NEW PARTY and organizations like it. We must not fool with the office of the president there is too much at stake. Even the bomber William Ayers brother John Ayers is associated with NEW PARTY? Carl Davidson associated with Tom Hyden is associated with NEW PARTY and "Venceremos Brigades" went to Cuba trained in explosives by Castro. Then William Ayers turns into a domestic bomber. Take a look at some of the history some of the friends of Obama that follows. Davidson and Tom Hayden take credit for having launched in 1969 the "Venceremos Brigades," which covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and interact with Havana's communist revolutionary leadership. (The Brigades were organized by Fidel Castro's Cuban intelligence agency, which trained "brigadistas" in guerrilla warfare techniques, including the use of arms and explosives.) Many years later, Davidson would reflect on his SDS days when he, along with Dave Dellinger and Tom Hayden, had taken advantage of an opportunity to converse at length with President Castro. Said Davidson: "He [Castro] is a remarkable man, with a photographic memory, wide knowledge and keen insights.... We should all wish Fidel and Cuba well, and double our voices against the blockade." (Makes sense now why Obama wants to lift the Trade Embargo with Cuba) In the mid-1990s Davidson was a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party, a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials. Most New Party members hailed from the Committees of Correspondence (the Marxist coalition cited in the preceding paragraph), the Democratic Socialists of America, and the militant leftist organization ACORN. Davidson first met Barack Obama through the New Party, which endorsed the latter in his run for the Illinois state senate in 1996. Obama had actively sought this endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. For more information, visit www.ameripac.org Defend Freedom, Alan Gottlieb AmeriPACPresident and Founder www.ameripac.org American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC) PO Box 1682 Dept Code 2949 Bellevue, WA 98009-1682 Wake Up America

Stifling Freedom Of Speech Through Fear - That's All It Takes?

Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 8, 6:40 am ET NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors. Yale cited fears of violence. Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week. A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons — including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban — in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them. The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry. "I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate. Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor. "I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable." Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands." In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue. It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations. "The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said. Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United states and Britain have declined to print the cartoons. "Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad." John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are "grandstanding." He said it was not a case of censorship because the university did not suppress original content that was not available in other places. "I would never have agreed to censor original content," Donatich said. Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it last week. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included. "I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said. The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said. She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence. Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions. She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence. Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk. Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence. "As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life." Keep headed down this road America, and you'll rue the day... Wake Up!!

How Many Answers Do You Know?

How and why did our education field start failing us? Did it have to do with the introduction of unionism, do you think? You know, same pay for every teacher regardless of effectiveness? And then tenure after so many years on the job. Yeah, that's a good system, isn't it? And this president wants to continue to strengthen unions! What a moronic position for the leader of the country to take. This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal. 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895 Grammar (Time, one hour) 1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters. 2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications. 3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph 4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play, ' and 'run.' 5. Define case; illustrate each case. 6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation. 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar. Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes) 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic. 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold? 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for tare? 4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals? 5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton. 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent. 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre? 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent. 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods? 10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes) 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War. 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion. 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe? 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865. Orthography (Time, one hour) [Do we even know what this is??] 1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified? 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?) 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule. 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each. 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup. 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last. 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays. 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication. Geography (Time, one hour) 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend? 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ? 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean? 4. Describe the mountains of North America 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each. 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude? 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers. 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

This Just In...Obama Is A Leftist!

Written by Larry Elder - Syndicated Columnist 9/3/2009 10:20:00 AM (Larry Elder is black. He sees just who and what Obama is. His views mirror the views of many other Americans. But if they were written by a white columnist, they would be labeled "racist". Why is that?) "Now I'm truly scared." A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News' Glenn Beck's series on the "alarming number of far-left radicals the President is surrounded by" -- referring to some of the president's special advisers and "czars." President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is "a true left-winger." So, now she knows. She didn't know after the president signed the $800 billion so-called "stimulus program." She didn't know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies and auto companies. She didn't know after Obama campaigned in favor of protectionism by promising to unilaterally change free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, or after the inclusion of "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus package." She didn't know after Obama campaigned on government-run healthcare or after he said during the campaign that "if starting from scratch," he'd implement the Canadian single-payer system. She didn't know after Obama stated his goal to impose job-killing and price-hiking "cap-and-trade" business taxes to fight "man-made global warming." (Never mind the vigorous debate in the scientific community about the degree to which -- or even whether -- human activity is the cause and whether it makes more sense to deal with the effect of a slight warming than to undertake costly and likely ineffective measures to stop it.) She didn't know after Obama's plans to "invest" to "create green jobs" of the future or after he moved oversight of the next census from the Department of Commerce to the White House (in order to increase the number of minorities so that government money can follow). She didn't know after Obama sided with black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and turned the professor's altercation with Cambridge police into a microcosm of the alleged widespread problem of unlawful "racial profiling" against blacks; after Obama spent 20 years in a church led by a smoke-coming-out-of-the-nose, America-bashing "spiritual adviser"; after Obama's selection of an attorney general who called America "cowardly" on matters of race; after the AG's refusal to indict members of the New Black Panther Party for seemingly clear voter intimidation; or after Obama's selection of a Supreme Court justice who many times claimed her gender and ethnicity make her superior to a "white male." She didn't know after a proposal by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to cap executive pay -- for both those businesses that receive taxpayer money and those that don't; after Obama's promise for a government-provided "world-class education" to all who want it; or after the Cash for Clunkers program, under which A helped pay for the purchase of a car for B. She didn't know after Obama promised to sit down "without preconditions" with enemies like the president of Iran and the head of North Korea; after Obama slammed Israel for building or expanding settlements, with nary a word about the daily rockets landing in Israel from the Gaza Strip; after proposals to reduce spending on missile shield defense; after the AG appointed a "special counsel" to determine whether workers at the CIA -- during the Bush administration -- should be prosecuted for using Justice Department-approved techniques to interrogate terrorists (despite a previously undertaken investigation by career prosecutors and over the objection of the current CIA head); or that the term "war on terror" would no longer be used. She didn't know after the public support of leaders in the Democratic Party -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and former presidential candidate John Kerry -- for the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to provide ideological "balance" over the airwaves; or after Obama, while publicly opposing the reinstatement of the doctrine, appointed an FCC "diversity czar" to pursue the same objective: squelching conservative talk radio. What does it take for some to wake up? When Obama publicly asserts that some corporations, including "Big Oil" and medical insurance companies, make "obscene profits" (they don't compare with many other industries) and that his "compensation czar" will look into executive compensation, what does that tell you? When he argues that medical insurance companies need a "public option" (before public opinion forced him to back away from it) to keep them "honest," what does that say? When he arrogantly claims that fighting "global warming" and tackling the "healthcare crisis" are not just moral imperatives but also necessary to keep our economy robust (?!), what does that show? Voters last year elected a left-wing former "community organizer" with one of the Senate's most liberal voting records. He seeks to take the country -- over the growing resistance of even those who voted for him -- to an idealized world of government-guaranteed equality of outcomes. He wants a government-guaranteed "level playing field" of wealth redistribution via taxing those deemed to have too much. Obama's goals are open, blatant, and confidently asserted, backed by a filibuster-proof, supermajority, Democratic-controlled Congress. There is no Big Secret, no subterfuge, no bait-and-switch. This is who and what he is. Wake Up America!

Email the White House With YOUR Questions

The White House is full of tech savvy individuals, they know how to send emails! They send them out to people who don't even want them. On August 24th I sent this email to the White House. Though I checked that I wanted a response, I haven't received one. Strange. I resent the email, stating that I had asked for a response and requesting they provide me a date for when I could expect a response. I sent that one on September 1st. I'm still waiting. Think I'll get one? I don't - the White House doesn't answer tough questions it seems. Here's the email... Good Afternoon, I have a few questions relative to a number of issues to which I would like truthful and complete answers. As checked below, please provide a response. Thank you in advance. Does the FBI do the vetting for the many Czars appointed by President Obama? Are the Czars paid with taxpayer dollars? How big a staff are they allowed (and please provide the staffing number currently employed on the largest team)? Are the Czar staffs paid with taxpayer dollars? What plan has the Obama administration developed to fund the "unfunded liability" we currently have relative to the Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security programs? That liability currently stands at over 644 Trillion dollars and is growing! Where and when did President Obama meet Van Jones? Does President Obama know and understand how radical Van Jones is? Before appointing Van Jones, did President Obama know that he was a self-avowed communist? If not, does he know it now, and what does he plan to do about that appointment? How is the Apollo Alliance tied to the Obama Administration? The entire US Constitution was created on 6 sheets of paper. Our Congressmen create bills that exceed 1000 pages. Why can't they create legislation in a much shorter format? And why aren't bills created and written in layman's term so that ALL Americans can read and understand them? Why is that not a law? And why is there no law that ALL congressmen must read and understand any bill set before them PRIOR to that bill receiving a vote? Thank you for your time. Flood the White House with emails folks! Make someone answer our questions. They want to use the tactics of flooding the system, well we can too! Wake Up America!

Questions, Questions

How did Van Jones' name get on the 9/11 "truther" document? He claims he doesn't believe, nor has he ever believed, any 9/11 conspiracy existed. He claims he didn't know what he was signing. And yet, he signed the document anyway. Either he's lying now, or he signed the document for some past gain. What was that? And is this the kind of person we want in our government? Someone who won't take responsibility for their actions? Now Obama's team supposedly vetted this guy. So now we need to ask, who signed off on his appointment along the way? What do we know about those people? What is their agenda? Who did the vetting - SEIU? If the FBI did the vetting, how did they miss so much about Van Jones? If they did the vetting, and didn't miss all the Van Jones history, why did Obama appoint him anyway? That's surely a lack of good judgement on his part. Do we want someone who has demonstrated poor judgement to this degree to continue to run our country? Is this the person who should be "leading" the free world? Obama has appointed several people like Van Jones as his "special advisors". He associated with reverend Wright for 20 years. He associated with William Ayers. He is now associating with wacko leftists - communists and socialists. His judgement has been suspect for over 20 years - can he be trusted to uphold the oath he took to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Personally, I don't think so. So where are our Senators and Representatives in all this? Where is their outrage? Their silence is a symptom of the disease that has infested Washington. Anyone who is not publicly speaking out about this needs to go - they are not true patriots in my view. Wake Up America!

The Face of Arrogance

Some are outraged by the president's planned address to the nation's kids next week. Does it look like he cares?

And This Is How Obama Remembers 9-11?

Found on GOPUSA Posted By Bobby Eberle On September 3, 2009 at 7:11 am When Michelle Malkin wrote yesterday of the plans by Barack Obama's White House to address school children across the nation and get them "thinking about" Obama, it really struck a nerve with our readers. He and his team have no limits on what they will do or say in order to inject socialist views into the minds of Americans. But, it doesn't stop there. They also have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the American way and the sacrifices American's have made in order to stay free and to promote the American way of life across the globe. Just take the latest effort being pitched at BarackObama.com. Rather than remembering the Americans who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Obama's political team wants you to make phone calls on 9-11 to fight back against "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists." Many thanks goes out to The Heritage Foundation for casting light on what Obama is doing at his political web site BarackObama.com (which goes by the name "Organizing for America"). After pointing out what Obama and his team were doing, the web page shown below was taken down. The remainder of the article can be viewed here: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1891 Wake Up America!

To All Our Military, Past and Present - We'll Look To You, Our Heroes!

I am writing this entry in honor of all the men and women who have bravely and honorably served this nation throughout its great history, but specifically to those who still serve. And I have some tough questions to ask. When you joined whatever your chosen branch of the military is, you took an oath. The oath required that you "solemnly swear (or affirm) that (you) will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that (you) will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that (you) will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over (you), according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help (you) God." First, I find it interesting, especially in these times, that you pledge this oath to God. That, in itself, provides some comfort to those of us who believe in the Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian beliefs that this country was founded upon. But what happens if/when you have to choose between defending the Constitution of the United States and obeying the orders of the President of the United States? What happens if/when the two become incompatible? What will you do? You need to think about that. I hope you will choose country and the Constitution over the President, for the country is more important than any one man. Those of you who have served the country are heroes, plain and simple. Hold fast to your honor and your integrity if it comes to making the hard choice. We are witnessing the American Republic being changed into something that contains facets of fascism, socialism and communism, and will soon resemble something much different than the American Republic as it was created. At some point this 'new' system is going to become incompatible with the ideology conveyed to us through the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It is inevitable if we stay on our current course. This President, with his rhetoric and his radical progressive agenda, and with this appointment of Communists and Socialists as "special advisors", has set us on a course that in my opinion, over time, will lead us directly to one of three violent conflicts. A race war (which he has fueled), a class war (which he continues to fuel) or an ideological war (in which the radical left revolutionaries have already unleashed the first salvo). In my opinion, if we do not get President Obama out of office soon, or at the very least dramatically influence the direction in which this country is headed through OUR voices, the next President may not have the strength of character or the will to avoid such a conflict. The writing is on the wall... Wake Up America!

An Interesting Article in Australian Shooter Magazine

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US , than you are in Iraq . Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington" Or maybe it would be better if we just sent the troops into Washington! What do you think? Wake Up America!

Five Pledges ALL Congressmen and Women Should Agree With

Glenn Beck developed 5 pledges for our Congressmen to support, they are … 1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized. 2. I believe that government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded. 3. I believe that more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support a plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary. 4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens. 5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet. Ask your Senators and Representative if they support these 5 items. If they do not, ask them why? If they can explain rationally, I'd love a comment on what they said. If they can't explain, refuse to explain, or can't support ALL five of these, VOTE THEM OUT!!!!! I heard one guy on the radio talking about how he asked his Representative if he would protect and defend the Constitution - a requirement of the Oath of Office he took. The Representative never answered the question. There's a no-brainer for voting someone out of office, wouldn't you agree! Wake Up America!

An Open Letter To President Obama

Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reilly's and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise! Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now. Can all the people who feel this way be wacko nut jobs? Wake Up America!

Republicans Are Evil

Written by Marcia Segelstein - I think she may be right! Living in a part of the country that is most definitely "blue" (as opposed to "red"), it's easy to begin to feel a little isolated, and certainly out of the mainstream. So it was especially fun reading Harry Stein's latest book, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican. Like me, Stein lives in the northern suburbs of New York City, in what he describes as a wildly liberal enclave of hip, culturally elite suburbanites. Stein calls himself a libertarian-conservative and he paints a vivid picture, which I can easily relate to, of what it's like to live surrounded by liberals. The book title's origin speaks volumes. Stein and his wife attended a dinner party during the most recent presidential primary season and, as Stein describes it, "the discussion turned to the glories of The Messiah." Stein had the temerity to mention Obama's lack of experience, which was apparently over the top for at least one fellow diner. "[T]he guy beside me, who'd known me all of 15 minutes, drew back his chair, cast me a savage look, and roared...'I can't believe I'm sitting next to a Republican!'" Yes folks, welcome to Blue America. I have always been struck by the propensity of liberals to attack conservatives. Tolerance, for liberals at least, seems to apply to everyone except conservatives. Diversity is about skin color, not diversity of thought. My views have been called repugnant, even by some near and dear to me, based purely on assumptions about what I believe. Stein writes about "how astonishingly little they [liberals] know about us." Beyond making assumptions about what conservatives actually believe, in my experience liberals also tend to assume everyone around them is liberal, too. The beautiful, brainy daughter of close friends, a Harvard graduate now working in the northeast, echoed similar sentiments recently. "I started my job during the election," she told me, "and people made the assumption that everyone was liberal. It was perfectly fine to lambaste McCain or Palin in public." In her experience, if you're perceived as a smart, decent human being, liberals can't imagine the possibility that you might be a conservative. What happens when people find out she is? She told me most people react with surprise, and then drop it. Much to her frustration, no one asks more about her views, or expresses any interest in them. "Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant," she told me, "but they're the most closed-minded." Stein would concur. He describes another encounter with a liberal, a guy he knew slightly, this time in the supermarket. Stein nodded to acknowledge him, when suddenly, "he spat out: 'You people disgust me!'" All this guy actually knew about Stein was that he'd written a conservative book. "'You're disgusting," he sputtered, swiping up his shopping bag and stomping away. 'You sicken me!'" Revealing your conservative leanings can be tricky, and sometimes it's easier just to keep quiet. One of Stein's conservative acquaintances, for example, didn't want his name used in the book. "'Why get into arguments with people?'" he told Stein. "'Your kids have to go to school with their kids, and it just leads to no good.'" A few years ago I chose not to allow my then elementary school-aged children to attend a school assembly promoting same-sex "marriage." After babysitting them and a handful of other children in the school library until the assembly was over, I ran into a couple of mothers who'd come to watch the assembly for themselves. One was a friend who knew and accepted my point of view and gave me her take on the series of skits called "Cootie Shots." The other made it clear that she was happy about the school's decision to put on the assembly. After all, she pointedly remarked, she didn't want her kids growing up to be rednecks. Stein asked a liberal editor at a publishing house he knows for "a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives." Without missing a beat she replied, "Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists....They hate everyone who's not a rich white guy." I have long thought that one of the striking differences between liberals and conservatives is this: liberals believe conservatives are evil, while conservatives believe liberals are wrong. Stein recounts something his friend Marlene told him, which makes the point. "[S]omeone I've known for 27 or 28 years actually said to me, 'Marlene, I know you've worked with the mentally ill, so I know you care about people. But how can you be a good person and a conservative?'" I guess this is news we can use, as the saying goes. It's important to keep in mind that the label "conservative" (or Republican) brands us, in the minds of many liberals, as just plain bad people. And while we shouldn't worry too much about how we're perceived, we should be concerned about the future of conservatism and getting its true message across. The country our children will inherit may depend on it.

How Can This Happen In America?

Back in the early '90's - 1992 I believe - a group out of San Francisco was created called Roots Against War (RAW). The organization was committed to involving young people of color in direct action protests against the Gulf War. It grew out of the people protesting against the Rodney King verdict. It transformed into Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). STORM expanded the membership to include people of all colors, though the majority was made up of women (60%) and people of color (75%). This organization also included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists. Eventually the anarchists left the organization and STORM became an organization with a mainly communist ideology. STORM officially dissolved in 2002, but published a book in 2004 called Reclaiming Revolution: History, Summary and and Lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (you can read the entire text here http://www.leftspot.com/blog/files/docs/STORMSummation.pdf). But here are excerpts from just the first two pages of this book. PREFACE: WHY THIS DOCUMENT This is the story of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a revolutionary cadre organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area. From September 1994 to December 2002 STORM helped to re-invigorate the Left, both locally and nationally. STORM members fought on the frontlines of some of the most important struggles of those eight years. We built organizations and institutions that continue to fight. And we supported the development of a new generation of revolutionary internationalists in the Bay Area and across the country. During that time, we gained a wealth of information that offers the Left some important lessons. To ensure that those lessons are not lost or clouded by time and memory, we have chosen to document that experience now. We humbly offer this document in hopes that it may move the Left forward. As young leftists starting a new revolutionary organization, we certainly could have used such a document. Most of us had never been in a revolutionary organization. After all, STORMS membership was always more than 60% woman and more than 75% people of color - people all too often (and tragically) marginalized and alienated from the U.S. Left. For eight years, we fumbled in the dark of our youth and inexperience as we tried to build STORM and a broader movement that would finally end the murderous reign of U.S. imperialism. And with the left in retreat globally and nationally, we seemed to be starting nearly from scratch. WHO WROTE THIS DOCUMENT Many of STORMS former members contributed to the development of this document, including almost all of the people who were part of it's dissolution in 2002. Once it was completed, nineteen of STORM's former members (a majority of our membership) expressed strong support for the analysis and conclusions of this document. Reclaiming Revolution is an attempt to pull our various perspectives on our history into a single document. Although our unity is not absolute, the majority of STORM's former members felt like we could stand by the conclusions of this document. These people all remain deeply engaged in movement-building work. Many of us are building power in working class communities of color. Others are building left institutions. Still others are finding ways to "serve the people". But all of us remain explicitly committed to revolutionary politics and revolutionary organization. As you read the document, you will learn of the organization's hatred for America, which they incorrectly categorize as imperialistic. And their response to the attacks of 911 are quite revealing relative to their thinking and ideology. They are self-avowed Marxists. Now the kicker. The founder of STORM is none other than Van Jones - the "green jobs Czar" in the Obama administration. Several questions arise. How can someone who formed these "hate America" organizations now be leading an economic movement in America supported by the President of the United States? How can someone who hates American "imperialism" now embrace the government he so blatantly loathes? And how can someone who is a self-avowed communist (yes, he admits that) be a top advisor to the President of the United States, and be running a major facet of American government? And lastly, and most importantly, how can any President of the United States allow a communist to come close to the power of the American government. Obama has surrounded himself with no less than five of these ideological idiots. How can that happen in America? Why have we allowed it? Why are we still allowing it, even after we have become aware of it? Is it treasonous? I don't know, but it seems to be to me. Wake up America!