Here is what the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) posits to the general public as the five most corrupting, offensive, true, and what needs to be looked at with regard to immigration reform brought forth by the infamous Gang of Eight, Barack Obama, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). In addition, these five issues also deal with ultimate changes to the American Electoral College albeit, not one word has been said about it.
We encourage that each person visit their website, FAIR, to see how intricately they uphold words. There is no ostensible political correctness on their site. Furthermore, we encourage that you read (it’s almost impossible not too!) some of the comments that their readers make.
Gang of Eight Breaks Promise on Back Taxes
A close analysis of the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill (S.744) shows that illegal aliens will in fact not be required to pay back taxes in order to receive legal status, which the bill calls ‘registered provisional immigrant’
Judge Says Obama Unilateral Amnesty Likely to be Blocked
A court challenge by federal immigration agents seeking to block President Barack Obama’s deferred-deportation initiative will probably succeed, a judge said.
Rubio’s Charm Offensive on Immigration Misrepresents the Facts, and His Own Past
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) keeps telling the American people that the Gang of Eight’s bill is not amnesty, despite the fact that virtually every illegal alien in the country will receive amnesty…
Amnesty Would Reshape Electoral College
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now.
Jeff Flake Plays Russian Roulette with Terrorists
How do you carry out meaningful background checks on 11 million people? The Gang of Eight has repeatedly offered assurances to the American public that illegal aliens seeking amnesty under their bill would have to undergo rigorous background checks.
We just would like to express our disbelief at the status of affairs within all aspects of the U.S. government. If it is not one department then it is another.
Take for instance that the U.S. “authorities” were contacted by Russian ministers, various departmental officials, whilst notifying their U.S. counterparts that apparently a bad apple had gotten through the system; moreover, it was the Russians who didn’t want to be blamed – in the likely event that this bad seed when into some Islamic jihad rage and start killing people.
The FBI was notified, as was the C.I.A. Both agencies responded in kind, so let’s do the least amount available – how about an interview? So the FBI had a case-worker sent out to interview the older of the two brothers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Tamerlan had come under scrutiny from the FBI, the CIA and Russian intelligence well before the Boston attack. The CIA had added Tamerlan’s name to a terrorist database 18 months ago, after Russian intelligence flagged him as a possible Muslim radical, said officials close to the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.
Now then notwithstanding that this jihadist posted comments on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media (YouTube), directly related to the Boston Marathon travesty. So what the heck let’s give this guy a visa for traveling to and from the area known as the Russian Caucasus’ and while we are at it, let’s make sure that all of the various agencies are working their absolute hardest – we must make sure that these brothers receive all necessary entitlements. This situation sure rings of “…good enough for government work…”
So the U.S.A. issues them Welfare, Food Stamps, and who only knows regarding unemployment insurance. The moral here people is that just think of it – every agency from HHS, to Justice, to the State department, Homeland Security, to the university that ‘Jahar’ attended no doubt with financial aid from the government to include his dorm room and meal card.
How much more can you stand? Every unsuitable agency in this country failed – period. Let’s all sing this one – “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to my right…and here I am – stuck in the middle with you.”
Seriously the Gang of Eight want to propose, table, and get the immigration reform bill ‘legislation’ done. However, we say, as should the rest of this country – “Enough Incompetence!”
Are you aware of the behind closed door negotiations that members of congress are conducting with those who grant waivers to Obamacare?
Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.
As tempting as it might be for anyone in Washington to find some way to spin the tragic events of the Boston bombings to advance their legislative agenda on Capitol Hill—and as mentioned in yesterday’s article they will indeed; however, they ought to think twice. That particularly goes for all sides in the immigration debate.
We are irked, therefore, that some of the bill’s supporters are making the case that the bombings in Boston demonstrate that we need the bill so “we can know who’s here.”
Washington should not get ahead of the facts, and it will take some time before we understand all sides to the events in Boston. From what we know so far, it appears law enforcement has conducted a textbook investigation into the bombing at the Boston Marathon.
They gave us the factual information they had, when they had it, and when they could share it. When it comes to tweaking the measures we use to prevent terrorist travel and foil plots, it is far too premature based on what they have told us to draw any conclusions on how to be more efficient at fighting terrorism.
America has had over a decade of experience in battling both transnational and “home-grown” terrorism. There is already plenty of experience to draw conclusions on how to keep this nation safe, free, and prosperous. When it comes to counterterrorism, the single most effective tool is finding the terrorists and stopping them before they kill. That has been the key to success to foiling most of the 54 frustrated plots by Islamist terrorists against America.
Good immigration and border security policies play an important, but supporting role. Generally, the rule is if you have good policies that facilitate legal immigration and travel while providing for public safety and security — they will serve well to help thwart terrorist travel.
In fact, the bill promises “new security” by demanding the government have an electronic system to ensure that we can check out every foreign visitor leaving the country. The problem is the federal requirement to do that is not new— it has been on the books at least 17 years and ignored by three different Administrations. It is still not in place. There is a vigorous debate over if “building this system is worth the security or immigration enforcement benefits it may provide.”
There are national security problems with the bill that we hope to be able to debate at length.
The Boston bombings were a stark reminder that terrorism is still a real security threat. The seriousness of that threat requires we react carefully and thoughtfully in debating key issues to
ensure we do what’s right to solve immigration reform and border security.
Therefore, we contend that we should make ALL MATTERS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM coming from or endorsed by the U.S. Senate be scrutinized to the inth degree. As time continues on we become far more
aware that we do not have a fence — built and completed before they started up again with immigration reform. Furthermore, let’s not forget about the Border Patrol officers, police, law enforcement personnel, and the lot who have paid the ultimate price, with their lives, ensuring our safety.
For example allow us this question: Would you willingly allow Senator’s Schumer, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or Dick Durbin and many others your PIN numbers to the bank account? Or giving any one of them the keys to your house for a week or month? Sorry folks, I just don’t trust them at all!
Remember our (USA) Principles and Priorities…Let Boston be your Guide….
This site is not and hopefully will never, ever become one of those politically correct – manipulation of words in language – site that as we are witnessing in the press. It is extremely important to identify issues, matters, and/or things as they are in reality and we encourage the “heck with it” attitude and if someone is carrying a homemade bomb and as evidence has led us to believe, that the same individual did seek to train, or even to advance in his knowledge of “Radical Islamic Jihad” well we wonder why all of the brouhaha as to whether refer to this crazy person as a “Terrorist” or a “Bomber.”
The entire line of questions is only confusing the proper use of English. Seems to us that the word Terrorist is a noun used to identify a person, their ideological, religious, and/or radical behavior whereas when one attends to a Bomber this appears to be where translation is lost with word meanings.
According to The American Heritage Dictionary and the Collins Online Free Dictionary there is a word choice differential that is interesting yet logical. Bomber is used in most cases in militaristic terms such as a particular aircraft, squadron, or what a person does.
So logically it appears to us that in this particular case of the Boston Marathon the brothers planned a terroristic attack that both was to kill and maim as many individuals as possible.
There so far exists evidence that one of the brothers traveled to Russia, as well as Chechnya to perhaps meet up with radicals.
Nevertheless what was inherent with the older brother is that communication with radical Islamic Jihadists, ideological and religious beliefs may have influenced his judgment. Although for the importance of the word usage is this following question:
What was the intent of these brothers? Where and how did they learn to make bombs capable of the carnage the bombs created and left on those in the immediate area (blast area, Boston, surrounding cities, and America) and the nation as a whole.
When one considers what their reasons were does that really matter in lieu of their offensives?
This definition and clarification aspect of this article is but to warn other individuals who may get caught up within the forthcoming spin that the U.S. government and all agencies thereof will try amount.
One other warning is that of the press and other forms of media. As a fundamental action we must be cautious not to let the press and their machinations of information seize this opportunity for their own ends – by creating a story that may or may not be true.
With our hearts and prayers going to those who suffered the greatest loss, to those who have lost body parts, to those whose lives have been forever changed by the demonstrative actions of some radical, arrogant brothers we will – with all diligence continue to pray for the people of Massachusetts.
If there is any valuable hope to be found in this tragic event let us all focus in on the tributes rendered at Fenway Park, the streets of Boston, and the compliance of the general public with those within law enforcement.
We cannot close with anything other than to hat-tap to the governor of Massachusetts, the mayor of Boston, and their staffs, as well as the “Colonel,” (the chief-of-police), and to every single person in Boston for showing the rest of America how it is supposed to be done.
If our nation’s leadership were really looking to “reform” the Naturalization and Immigration Act, or to provide greater security to the people, or let’s just presuppose that their actual mission was somehow a way to match up immigration pursuant to Constitutional concerns, then I would not have to take the time to write this Exposé.
Let’s review the word reform. An opportunity to improve something by removing faults is of course the number one definition for what reform actually does. Even the ability to get rid of unacceptable habits and persuading the modes of behavior on the very system that is charged with the reorganization and improvement of faulty, ineffective, or unjust considerations could be made acceptable.
In fact, we are of the substantiated opinion that if the cause was about reform, that is, improvement, reorganizing, restructuring, modifying, whilst still making the necessary alterations, changes, even newly developing policies and procedures would be a welcoming arms-wide-open try at the very least.
However, none of the aforementioned criteria is even being examined, evaluated, or assessed. Furthermore, let’s come to the point of the proceedings – realistically, the Gang of Eight, every advocacy group we are aware of to include just about every special interest group – are not, and I will repeat this, are not looking for the true measure of immigration reform. In fact, we could clearly point fingers at the various agencies, departments, as well as their cadre for crimes committed, who colluded with whom, and most importantly where therein lies the corruption and utility for those involved.
In all earnest writing, talking, or other means of communicating the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” as is being presented now in the United States is just another way of placating the people who want it.
What we are offering to the general public is this:
The U.S.A. leadership is not looking for true reform; rather the leadership is looking for an acceptable way to accommodate a particular group of people. There are somewhere between 11 and 19 million people living in America that really should not be in America at all.
The honest to goodness actual problem America is facing is “what are we going to do now?” This course is, in our judgment, sending an unfavorable and flawed view of how we do things in America.
This country has tried nothing with the exception of manipulating words so as not to offend anyone. Conversely, is catering to a mass of disgruntled people the way of reform? We think not –
We have in the United States an old, tattered, and very ineffectual way of keeping people out of our country. Not to be misunderstood, we understand and accept why people would leave their residence wherever it may be to come and live in America; or, what used to be America.
It almost seems like a “right” either on a human, civil, or living scale to relocate from where we are to another place on our planet. In spite of this (Open-Borders advocates, live anywhere and be treated to what may or may not have been earned, La Raza special interest group) one easily could or can when dealing with an up to date set of agencies that have rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. This simply is not the case within the United States.
In spite of this, it will not be a successful “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” whatsoever. Facts are facts, laziness is unfortunately still laziness, and reckless disregard will continue to be reckless disregard. Any time that a government allows for 11 to 19 million people to come and engage in every sort of activity from purchasing property to you name it – without an effectual way of cleaning up the hosts that are attracted to every sort of entitlement imaginable – brings to our minds the very cliché, “if you are not part of the solution, then you are a part of the pollution.”
Any person who falls for this adage of, you are not illegal or you are not an alien, is of course trying to make exclusions for themselves with this particular issue.
The United States federal government is at fault for not having an expedient and well-managed Immigration Service in the world.
Equally if not more so at fault is that person who vagabonds their way into a sovereign nation without proper permission and therefore is undocumented…like hell, they are illegally here. They have broken the laws of the United States. Being as realistic as possible here what has happened to the Rule of Law in America?
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded in an interview with television reporters to the leak of incriminating State Department e-mails from September 11. It was another disgraceful performance by an Obama Administration official, an attempt to flagrantly dismiss mounting, incriminating evidence. The e-mails, obtained by Reuters and CBS, informed other government agencies as well as the White House in real time about the terrorist attack taking place on the Benghazi consulate. Their content clearly contradicted the Obama Administration’s argument that the attack was a result of a spontaneous demonstration spurred by an anti-Islam video.…
Ryan Makes Case for School Choice
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) made a strong case yesterday for the need to ensure that every child in America has the opportunity to attend a school of choice. “If we want to restore the promise of America,” Ryan stated, “then we must reform our broken public-school system.”
Ryan is right.
Millions of children pass through our nation’s broken public schools year after year. Too many of those children have no other choice. Confined by their parent’s zip codes and economic means, they are assigned to government schools, where, in some of our nation’s largest cities, they are just as likely to drop out as they are to graduate.
Politically Connected Company Wins Offshore Wind Lease Despite Setbacks
A politically connected renewable energy company has received the go-ahead from the Interior Department to produce wind energy off the coast of Delaware, despite doubts that the project in question will actually materialize.
Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced Tuesday that it had reached an agreement with NRG Bluewater Wind, a project of NRG Energy, to lease 96,430 acres off the coast of Delaware for commercial wind energy production.
But it’s not clear that NRG will be able to secure the financing needed to actually produce energy in that area. The company was forced to cancel a power purchase agreement with Delmarva Power in December after it failed to find financing for the Bluewater project.
The former chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the founding director of the White House Office on Environmental Policy, McGinty is a “protégé of Al Gore,” according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Morning Bell: Obama’s “New Economic Patriotism”
When he was running for President, Obama condemned George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt over eight years, calling it “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Now—in less than four years—Obama’s Administration has already added almost $6 trillion to the debt. And he’s on track to add another $4 trillion over the next decade.
So the definition of what it actually means to be an economic patriot is still a bit confusing. But as for the President’s plan, it hasn’t been changed or updated. CNN’s Jessica Yellin reported that “there’s not anything significantly new in here. It’s just all compiled in a nice booklet now.”
The “New Economic Patriotism” recycles the President’s plans for the future that we’ve heard hundreds of times. And its version of the past four years is pretty rosy, despite persistently high unemployment. Let’s examine a few of its claims:
Has the President created 5 million jobs? No.
Has the President “strengthened Medicare”? Definitely no.
Is the President “leading the fight to safely and responsibly develop all sources of domestic energy”? No and more no.
The Sickening Abuses and Scheming of Obama
Earlier this morning after a brief discussion with our team I stated that “My fear is of major concern for our Nation – it’s not about various policies that like brief streams of wind come and go because for what it’s worth that is precisely what politicians do (and the staff here realize that I am definitely referring to human communication, twisting words, and making mockery out of context within a given content – [continuing] I stated that my biggest fear for me, mine, you, yours, and the entire lot of people living in America is none other than this man…Barack Obama.”
Paraphrasing here I also made mention of how could anyone living in this nation – America – possibly vote for this guy. Furthermore, upon being asked why, I very simply stated that I felt that not only was President Obama not qualified to be the POTUS; moreover, I feel that he is dangerous to the health, safety, and welfare of the Nation.
Naturally our earlier briefing session was longer than any of us thought it would be but there is one complete line of substantiated facts that we will never hear at a debate, or any public policy speech.
There should not be an American or anyone existing in this country that could possibly turn a blind eye, or non-hearing ears to the travesties that have occurred on Barack Obama’s watch – yet with the assistance of the mainstream media, as well as the gullibility of the people, including the lassie-faire consciousness and reluctance for people to do – efficacy – the notion of making a change in the political system of our nation. Therefore, again I reiterated that a vote for any other person running for the office of the President of the United States would be better than a condoning vote for Barack Obama.
We have addressed the relationship of content and context on this site for years. In addition, we have discussed the options of comparing and contrasting events. These parameters often used in History classes or Literature classes in the form of essays are asking for just that; foretelling by comparing or contrasting the facts that have occurred with what would or could be a more desirable outcome.
First we want to address content of what was stated by Obama on Sunday September 13, 2012 and we will present to you the actual words. Our question is what context was the language used? For example, was the President explaining an event that occurred; or, was he manipulating all of the content to prove his assertion that he did in fact, call the events that happened in Benghazi, Libya a “Terrorist Attack”?
From this point it is very conceivable that based on how the content was manipulated (out of context) as to why the events of the next fourteen days occurred namely the use of a video tape, a non-structured riot, the Nation’s Ambassador to the United Nations making appearances on all the Sunday morning shows, and finally the gumption of an unbiased press to contrast the White House’s story and subsequently, the official story.
The following is a transcript of the actual proceedings pursuant to last night’s debate with special emphasis given to the content, context, and the comparing and contrasting that for me represent a clear and present danger to those of us in America with Barack Obama as president.
Mr. Obama did make reference to the fact that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” but his comments that day also appeared to reference the video, when he said, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” The administration changed its description of the attack, eventually describing it as a terror attack linked to al Qaeda sympathizers. Although this is what President Obama claims as his definition of calling what happened in Benghazi a “Terrorist” attack? “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”
Please see today’s edition of the Wall Street Journal for a complete analysis with text and video to support what was actually said. Please click here.
Please understand that the attempt of President Obama alleging that in the Rose Garden he made mention of the Benghazi attack remotely or even quasi-significant as a “Terrorist attack” is nothing more than manipulation of content within the parameters of the communiqué. This is what is often referred to as “taken out of context” and in this instance he sure did. The manipulation of words is perhaps one of the most deceitful means of scheming and launching horrendous fabrications.
“But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:6-8)
The Greatest Politically Correct Misnomer of All Time
One of the conflicting contentions that has plagued me for a lifetime is of course the notion behind a person being politically correct. And if one has been around this site even on a weekly basis they would be sure to know how we feel about political correctness. In short, given the information contained within the pages of this blog we feel absolutely certain that we have presented the aspects, motivation, and inspiration of one being politically correct as a rather “go along and get along” over-politeness, at the expense of not offending anyone. Therefore, rather than call a criminal, a criminal, as a society we are challenged into finding new ways of description whereby the criminal has evolved into the ethically challenged individual.
Again one of my gravest concerns is that this over-polite posturing not only is changing the real meaning of words, moreover, as mentioned before political correctness is a means of destroying a society’s language. And as we have presented our evidence it appears that in order to completely decimate a community, society, and inevitably a nation as a whole is to change its language.
At the top of this page are headers that link to specified pages concerning political correctness. Furthermore, all one need do is to either type political correctness in the search box also at the top or go over to the categories drop-down menu and select that category to gain access to the close to 200 articles we’ve written on political correctness.
The epitome of what we are saying appeared in our recent article titled, Sexual Orientation. In this particular exposé we used every available professional dictionary, professional journal, diagnostic references including The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), is the American Psychiatric Association’s standard reference for psychiatry which includes over 400 different definitions of mental disorders.
However, though it was a worthwhile attempt at good research, we nonetheless came away with what sexual orientation is not. In other words, we have deduced that the definition of sexual orientation is null and rather void, in other words does not exist.
Now then, our esteemed leadership simply could not accept that qualification; therefore, when special interest and advocacy groups are all but running (or ruining the country) if you like; consequently, this much is overwhelmingly evident brought to our attention by one very perceptive commenter as she espoused: “How can a person without anything (to include the proverbial pot to pee in) enter Congress and years later walk away with millions of dollars?”
Getting on with the point – should sexual orientation be used as a politically correct way of language changing? As clear as anything as we know it, the definition we found for these words is nothing shy of rhetoric introduced so that we, Mark and Mary Public would have another way to refer to people of the homosexual persuasion.
This is also true by the expert linguists who dreamt up such identifiers as the LGBTQ community, equal rights for what has now become (thanks to our liberal government) an unusually humongous “protected class” of people.
And that is not all…if one ever looks into the government’s handling of the 14th Amendment there certainly are a lot more issues and matters coming down the pike.
For years we have maintained that the entire idea of one being politically correct is a direct result of Cultural Marxism; subsequently, much of being politically correct can be traced directly to University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silvergate, as the two connected political correctness to Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.
They claim that liberal ideas of free speech are repressive, arguing that such “Marcusean logic” is the base of speech codes, which are seen by some as censorship, in US universities. Kors and Silvergate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, (FIRE) which campaigns against PC speech codes.
Some conservative critics claim that political correctness is Marxist undermining of Western values. William S. Lind and Patrick Buchanan have characterized PC as a technique originated by the Frankfurt School, through what Buchanan describes as “Cultural Marxism.” In The Death of the West, Buchanan says: “Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.”
It would be folly, of course, to imagine that Obama just magically appeared out of thin air to lead a nation of liberty-loving, responsible, moral, right-thinking grownups leftward. America has been moving in this sad direction for decades.
No, not under the “Marxist” label, or any of those other nasty words of yesteryear, like “socialism” or “communism” or “collectivism.” They’ve all been carefully replaced by warm-and-cuddly terms like “fairness,” “economic justice,” “redistribution,” “progressivism” and – as an off-script Obama famously told Joe the Plumber – “spread[ing] the wealth around.”
These are however the massive tenants of how Karl Marx communicated his basis for language manipulation and inevitably, revolution.
The spirit of socialism has taken root and flowered spectacularly in America, especially in all of our elite, idea-generating institutions like education, the news and entertainment media, and, of course, government. The original American spirit – stout, risk-taking, God-fearing, responsible, adult – has progressively been displaced by the spirit of dependency and helplessness, of perpetual grievance and victimization, and most of all, of envy and resentment. All of which cries out for ever bigger government.
If anyone missed the quintessential epoch of this very sentiment all one really need to do is get on over to You Tube maybe even Fox News and watch the brutal unforeseen and uncalled for attack by Juan Williams on Michelle Malkin during Sean Hannity’s show.
So the question is: Will we Americans re-embrace the values that made ours – the greatest nation in history, or will we continue on our current path toward the godless mirage of “redistributive change” – and the poverty and loss of liberty that always follows?
Without further adieu folks, the time to appreciate what we’ve had, who built it, and for us – who is going to stay lockstep in line to keep it that way will be in our opinion one of the greatest tasks people concerned about the USA will ever have to make and strive to live for.
And now for our unrelenting respect for David Kupelian who is the editor of World Net Daily and maintains his claim to fame, Whistleblower magazine, who writes this week about just how much America has changed if only in the last thirty years.
The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama – whose level of security clearance is far higher than my Top Secret Security Clearance who indeed has access to all intelligence and all secrets, not to mention having his “finger on the nuclear button” – was during his college years a committed Marxist, advocating the revolutionary overthrow of America’s capitalist system. His father was a communist. His main mentor as a young teenager, Frank Marshall Davis, was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA.
Obama admits in “Dreams From My Father” that, during college, he was attracted to the “Marxist professors.” Indeed, the Marxist student leader at Occidental College at the time, John Drew, says Obama was far more radical than even Drew, actually believed that Marx’s prophesied proletariat revolution to overthrow capitalism was imminent in the United States.
Obama launched his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers, a self-described “small-c communist” and unrepentant Pentagon-bombing terrorist. Moreover, the evidence is indisputable that Ayers played a major role in writing Obama’s highly acclaimed autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.”
Obama’s pastor for two decades, whom he described as his “spiritual mentor,” was Jeremiah Wright, a perennially enraged, America-hating purveyor of “Black Liberation Theology” (Marxism disguised as Christianity).
As I’m sure you are aware, we could go on and on. These oft-cited facts merely scratch the surface of Obama’s long-term radicalism.
That was then. But now, sitting in the White House is a man who has spent most of his entire life immersed in Marxist ideology, influences, mentors and benefactors. He has proven, as president that he is still fully committed to dragging America – kicking and screaming if necessary (recall the outrageous and illegal way Obamacare was passed) – into a new era of unprecedented, government-coerced redistribution of wealth and power. To be precise: Marxism.
America has been moving in this sad direction for decades. No, not under the “Marxist” label, or any of those other nasty words of yesteryear, like “socialism” or “communism” or “collectivism.” They’ve all been carefully replaced by warm-and-cuddly terms like “fairness,” “economic justice,” “redistribution,” “progressivism” and – as an off-script Obama famously told Joe the Plumber – “spread[ing] the wealth around.”
All the while manipulating the words to become something else.