Showing posts with label Obama and socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama and socialism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama's New Party Socialist Working Families Party Agenda Revealed
Here we have more controversy in the Obama campaign...big surprise. When I conducted my own research, here is what I found connecting Obama and socialism.
First, some history on the issue.
"The SP [Socialist Party] focuses on grassroots activism in addition to electoral politics. It has conducted "Socialist Summer" campaigns in recent years to address issues such as counter-recruitment and fighting to end the military-industrial complex; promoting socialized health care; supporting immigrant workers and battling persecution of immigrants following the September 11, 2001 attacks; and promoting civil liberties and civil rights.
The Party's principles and platform call for the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control, production for use instead of profit, and the establishment of a classless society.
...favor a more radical or revolutionary transformation of society from capitalist to socialist"--according to Wikipedia.org
The Social Democratic Party and part of the Socialist Labor Party merged to create the Socialist Party of America.
The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee was founded by the Socialist Party of America.
The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America.
Two Other Socialist Party factions went on to form Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.
The Democratic Socialists of America established The New Party.
The New Party became the Working Families Party.
"The New Party was founded in the early 1990s by Daniel Cantor...as an effort to break with the largely unsuccessful history of left-leaning third parties in the United States.
...the New Party built modestly successful chapters in several states. Some of these chapters — such as those in Chicago and Little Rock — had their main bases of support in the low-income community organizing group ACORN, along with some support from various labor unions (especially ACORN-allied locals of the Service Employees International Union).
...Several chapters — initially, those chapters not connected with ACORN — disaffiliated. ... Cantor and other key staff members left to found the Working Families Party..."--according to Wikipedia.org
See the connection? Cantor left the New Party and founded the Working Families Party.
"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago."--according to the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine
"Here are some of our key races:...
Illinois: Three NP [New Party]-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."--according to New Party.org
"The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics....
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries...Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."--according to the July/August 1996 edition of the Democratic Socialists of America fourth story down at this link
Now, here is some documented history regarding the Working Families Party (WFP).
"The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States founded in New York in 1998. ...
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups. The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism. ...it has won notable policy gains at the city, county and state level by piggybacking on Democratic or Republican candidates.
The Working Families Party currently endorses Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) for the 2008 presidential election.
The party's Co-Chairs are Sam Williams, UAW Region 9 CAP director; Bertha Lewis, ACORN's executive director
The intensely activist union is known to contribute more than $100,000 a year of the party's $1.4 million annual budget."--according to Wikipedia.org
"...the party's large-scale canvassing effort may have been a decisive factor. Officials say its paid workers and volunteers knocked on 40,000 doors in the Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan district, identified 9,000 likely supporters of the candidate...
"They run a very, very effective field operation," a chief political strategist for the Senate Democrats, Douglas Forand, said. "In a low-turnout election, what's most critical is identifying and turning out the vote."...
...Working Families Party officials say their role in the elections gives them significantly more leverage to mold policy to the party's liking.
"We don't want just a change of parties. We want a change of policies," a spokesman for the party, Daniel Levitan, said. "We want to flip the Senate..."
Their endorsements have also gone to candidates who support raising taxes...
For the unions, the party offers them a place on the ballot, a sophisticated piece of political machinery to enforce their platform...
...The party also allows them to lobby the Legislature..."
--according to the New York Sun
"The Working Families Party was formed in 1998 ... The plan at the time was not to cut ties with the Democratic Party but to be a force to prevent the Democrats from continuing what the group’s leaders described as a drift to a more conservative agenda."--according to The New York Times
"...the Working Families Party may have illegally funneled nearly $32,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group accused of voter fraud in several parts of the country." --according to the New York Post
"...promoting ACORN-friendly candidates. Unlike conventional political parties, WFP charges its members dues -- about $60 per year -- a policy characteristic of ACORN and its affiliates.
According to the party's website, WFP is a coalition founded jointly by ACORN, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Automobile Workers. However, ACORN clearly dominates the coalition. New York ACORN leader Steven Kest was the moving force in forming the party, and WFP headquarters are located at the same address as ACORN's national office, at 88 Third Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
"The [Working Families Party] was created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left," noted the Associated Press in 2000. In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike.
...Thus when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she ran both on the Democratic Party ticket and on the Working Families Party ticket.
"Candidates know that when they're on our line, they're committed to certain things," explains Bertha Lewis, who moonlights as WFP co-chair and New York ACORN Executive Director. Speaking days before Mrs. Clinton won her Senate seat in 2000, Lewis noted, "Hillary knows that if she wins, we're going to be knockin' on her door. She won't be able to hide."--according to Discover The Networks.org
"The WFP's platform almost exclusively promotes kitchen-table economic positions, such as supporting higher wages, preventing outsourcing and expanding health care.
So, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2000 received 102,000 votes for U.S. Senate on the WFP line, meaning 102,000 people sent her a message that their support was contingent on her supporting the WFP's agenda. According to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor, this message gets louder down the ballot. "We brand our endorsed candidates right on the ballot so that voters who might not know the candidate still know how to vote on the important issues," he says.
Voters then rated the party on a scale where 1 was extremely liberal and 9 extremely conservative. Fifty-seven percent of voters labeled the WFP at 5 or above."
So, if you were wondering if Obama is connected as a socialist in America, you need not wonder anymore. If you were wondering if your taxes are going to be raised if Obama becomes the next U.S. President, you need not wonder anymore. If you wonder if there is a hidden agenda behind Obama's populist rhetoric, you need not wonder anymore. He is not driving only his own agenda but that of the WFP as well. I have issue with this being okay with people in America!
Sources:
www.workingfamiliesparty.org
The New York Sun
Wikipedia.org
wfpjournal.blogspot.com (The Official Blog for the Working Families Party, New Party)
The New York Times
The New York Post
Working Families Party on MySpace
Discover The Networks.org
Working Families Party on Facebook
New Party.org
November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine
July/August 1996 edition of the Democratic Socialists of America
First, some history on the issue.
"The SP [Socialist Party] focuses on grassroots activism in addition to electoral politics. It has conducted "Socialist Summer" campaigns in recent years to address issues such as counter-recruitment and fighting to end the military-industrial complex; promoting socialized health care; supporting immigrant workers and battling persecution of immigrants following the September 11, 2001 attacks; and promoting civil liberties and civil rights.
The Party's principles and platform call for the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control, production for use instead of profit, and the establishment of a classless society.
...favor a more radical or revolutionary transformation of society from capitalist to socialist"--according to Wikipedia.org
The Social Democratic Party and part of the Socialist Labor Party merged to create the Socialist Party of America.
The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee was founded by the Socialist Party of America.
The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America.
Two Other Socialist Party factions went on to form Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.
The Democratic Socialists of America established The New Party.
The New Party became the Working Families Party.
"The New Party was founded in the early 1990s by Daniel Cantor...as an effort to break with the largely unsuccessful history of left-leaning third parties in the United States.
...the New Party built modestly successful chapters in several states. Some of these chapters — such as those in Chicago and Little Rock — had their main bases of support in the low-income community organizing group ACORN, along with some support from various labor unions (especially ACORN-allied locals of the Service Employees International Union).
...Several chapters — initially, those chapters not connected with ACORN — disaffiliated. ... Cantor and other key staff members left to found the Working Families Party..."--according to Wikipedia.org
See the connection? Cantor left the New Party and founded the Working Families Party.
"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago."--according to the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine
"Here are some of our key races:...
Illinois: Three NP [New Party]-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."--according to New Party.org
"The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics....
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries...Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."--according to the July/August 1996 edition of the Democratic Socialists of America fourth story down at this link
Now, here is some documented history regarding the Working Families Party (WFP).
"The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States founded in New York in 1998. ...
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups. The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism. ...it has won notable policy gains at the city, county and state level by piggybacking on Democratic or Republican candidates.
The Working Families Party currently endorses Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) for the 2008 presidential election.
The party's Co-Chairs are Sam Williams, UAW Region 9 CAP director; Bertha Lewis, ACORN's executive director
The intensely activist union is known to contribute more than $100,000 a year of the party's $1.4 million annual budget."--according to Wikipedia.org
"...the party's large-scale canvassing effort may have been a decisive factor. Officials say its paid workers and volunteers knocked on 40,000 doors in the Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan district, identified 9,000 likely supporters of the candidate...
"They run a very, very effective field operation," a chief political strategist for the Senate Democrats, Douglas Forand, said. "In a low-turnout election, what's most critical is identifying and turning out the vote."...
...Working Families Party officials say their role in the elections gives them significantly more leverage to mold policy to the party's liking.
"We don't want just a change of parties. We want a change of policies," a spokesman for the party, Daniel Levitan, said. "We want to flip the Senate..."
Their endorsements have also gone to candidates who support raising taxes...
For the unions, the party offers them a place on the ballot, a sophisticated piece of political machinery to enforce their platform...
...The party also allows them to lobby the Legislature..."
--according to the New York Sun
"The Working Families Party was formed in 1998 ... The plan at the time was not to cut ties with the Democratic Party but to be a force to prevent the Democrats from continuing what the group’s leaders described as a drift to a more conservative agenda."--according to The New York Times
"...the Working Families Party may have illegally funneled nearly $32,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group accused of voter fraud in several parts of the country." --according to the New York Post
"...promoting ACORN-friendly candidates. Unlike conventional political parties, WFP charges its members dues -- about $60 per year -- a policy characteristic of ACORN and its affiliates.
According to the party's website, WFP is a coalition founded jointly by ACORN, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Automobile Workers. However, ACORN clearly dominates the coalition. New York ACORN leader Steven Kest was the moving force in forming the party, and WFP headquarters are located at the same address as ACORN's national office, at 88 Third Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
"The [Working Families Party] was created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left," noted the Associated Press in 2000. In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike.
...Thus when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she ran both on the Democratic Party ticket and on the Working Families Party ticket.
"Candidates know that when they're on our line, they're committed to certain things," explains Bertha Lewis, who moonlights as WFP co-chair and New York ACORN Executive Director. Speaking days before Mrs. Clinton won her Senate seat in 2000, Lewis noted, "Hillary knows that if she wins, we're going to be knockin' on her door. She won't be able to hide."--according to Discover The Networks.org
"The WFP's platform almost exclusively promotes kitchen-table economic positions, such as supporting higher wages, preventing outsourcing and expanding health care.
So, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2000 received 102,000 votes for U.S. Senate on the WFP line, meaning 102,000 people sent her a message that their support was contingent on her supporting the WFP's agenda. According to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor, this message gets louder down the ballot. "We brand our endorsed candidates right on the ballot so that voters who might not know the candidate still know how to vote on the important issues," he says.
Voters then rated the party on a scale where 1 was extremely liberal and 9 extremely conservative. Fifty-seven percent of voters labeled the WFP at 5 or above."
So, if you were wondering if Obama is connected as a socialist in America, you need not wonder anymore. If you were wondering if your taxes are going to be raised if Obama becomes the next U.S. President, you need not wonder anymore. If you wonder if there is a hidden agenda behind Obama's populist rhetoric, you need not wonder anymore. He is not driving only his own agenda but that of the WFP as well. I have issue with this being okay with people in America!
Sources:
www.workingfamiliesparty.org
The New York Sun
Wikipedia.org
wfpjournal.blogspot.com (The Official Blog for the Working Families Party, New Party)
The New York Times
The New York Post
Working Families Party on MySpace
Discover The Networks.org
Working Families Party on Facebook
New Party.org
November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine
July/August 1996 edition of the Democratic Socialists of America
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rethinking Obama. I've Been Too Hard On Him.
With the coming of a new week and with the opportunity to vote early, I am mulling over this election in my mind.
I'm giving Obama another thought, wondering if I am too hard on the poor lad.
Sure, the economy is bad. That is why the polls are so much higher for Obama. He has no ties to the economy, where McCain is a Republican and therefore, McCain must be responsible. When Obama gets elected, he'll fix the economy for sure.
So, I wondered about whether I've been too hard on Obama regarding the Ayers relationship. Is it his fault that the guy is literally his neighbor? I am sure that he never talks to his neighbors, since he has obviously been to busy organizing the community. He probably doesn't even know that Ayers purchased the other half of the lot, making Obama's half more affordable. I bet that, when Obama went next door for the fundraiser, he had no idea that he was stepping foot into Ayers' home. I'm guessing that he just thought he had been cut a lucky break when the guy next door offered to have a fundraiser to launch Obama's political campaign. He probably just said, 'Wow. This guy next door, whom I don't know at all, is willing to jump start my career and earn me some cash.". I bet he was totally excited and didn't even cross paths with Ayers the whole time he was there.
What about the contributions he has reportedly received (the top second) from Fannie Mae? Oh, that must have been a type-o. He is going to fix the economy, so he must have nothing to do with the down-swing of the nation's economy. He isn't a Republican. Obama is a Democrat, which means he had nothing to do with anything along the lines of the bombing economy and the lack of cash in our pocketbooks. He has tons of wonderful programs that the government is going to take charge of for us. Surely, the money for those programs will come from some magic place and we won't have to pay for it out of our earnings. His idea to have much of our society taken over by the government sounds so great. The government never screws anything up.
Obama has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. After all, he is a Democrat. Of course, he made a mistake when he initially voted for the war. The poor guy. Things just happen. It's not because of anything he has done. He wouldn't vote for anything like the war in Iraq. When Obama becomes President, his desire to yank the U.S. out of Iraq is so perfect. So what if Iraq collapses under it's own government.
I think it would be great to have dialog with Iran. When Amademajad says that the U.S. and Israel should be wiped off the map, Obama should just talk.
When Amademajad says that the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews made it up, Obama should just discuss it. What is the problem in that? When Amademajad says that the U.S. should be bombed with a nuclear bomb, Obama should just assume that he is having a bad day, go get him a cup of coffee and talk. After all, he is human and he will feel better about things once he has been able to talk them out. Yes, Obama's desire to have diplomatic discussions with Amademajad is so realistic and reasonable.
I admire Obama's desire to be Christian. Wright must be getting the shaft when people are discussing his views. Being Christ-like is a tricky thing. Of course, Wright never taught that being Christian means that you can be racist. Why would Obama sit and listen to that council. Wright must be teaching the correct views on Christianity. Obama certainly wouldn't tie himself with anyone who taught incorrect things about 9/11. I sure do admire someone who is acting like a true Christian.
I think that I've been too hard on Obama for sure. I know who I'm going to vote for now that I have mulled it over.
I'm giving Obama another thought, wondering if I am too hard on the poor lad.
Sure, the economy is bad. That is why the polls are so much higher for Obama. He has no ties to the economy, where McCain is a Republican and therefore, McCain must be responsible. When Obama gets elected, he'll fix the economy for sure.
So, I wondered about whether I've been too hard on Obama regarding the Ayers relationship. Is it his fault that the guy is literally his neighbor? I am sure that he never talks to his neighbors, since he has obviously been to busy organizing the community. He probably doesn't even know that Ayers purchased the other half of the lot, making Obama's half more affordable. I bet that, when Obama went next door for the fundraiser, he had no idea that he was stepping foot into Ayers' home. I'm guessing that he just thought he had been cut a lucky break when the guy next door offered to have a fundraiser to launch Obama's political campaign. He probably just said, 'Wow. This guy next door, whom I don't know at all, is willing to jump start my career and earn me some cash.". I bet he was totally excited and didn't even cross paths with Ayers the whole time he was there.
What about the contributions he has reportedly received (the top second) from Fannie Mae? Oh, that must have been a type-o. He is going to fix the economy, so he must have nothing to do with the down-swing of the nation's economy. He isn't a Republican. Obama is a Democrat, which means he had nothing to do with anything along the lines of the bombing economy and the lack of cash in our pocketbooks. He has tons of wonderful programs that the government is going to take charge of for us. Surely, the money for those programs will come from some magic place and we won't have to pay for it out of our earnings. His idea to have much of our society taken over by the government sounds so great. The government never screws anything up.
Obama has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. After all, he is a Democrat. Of course, he made a mistake when he initially voted for the war. The poor guy. Things just happen. It's not because of anything he has done. He wouldn't vote for anything like the war in Iraq. When Obama becomes President, his desire to yank the U.S. out of Iraq is so perfect. So what if Iraq collapses under it's own government.
I think it would be great to have dialog with Iran. When Amademajad says that the U.S. and Israel should be wiped off the map, Obama should just talk.
'So sorry that you feel that way, Amademajad. Let's talk it over and find out if this rage comes from your relationship with your father.'
When Amademajad says that the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews made it up, Obama should just discuss it. What is the problem in that? When Amademajad says that the U.S. should be bombed with a nuclear bomb, Obama should just assume that he is having a bad day, go get him a cup of coffee and talk. After all, he is human and he will feel better about things once he has been able to talk them out. Yes, Obama's desire to have diplomatic discussions with Amademajad is so realistic and reasonable.
I admire Obama's desire to be Christian. Wright must be getting the shaft when people are discussing his views. Being Christ-like is a tricky thing. Of course, Wright never taught that being Christian means that you can be racist. Why would Obama sit and listen to that council. Wright must be teaching the correct views on Christianity. Obama certainly wouldn't tie himself with anyone who taught incorrect things about 9/11. I sure do admire someone who is acting like a true Christian.
I think that I've been too hard on Obama for sure. I know who I'm going to vote for now that I have mulled it over.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama - The Destruction of the United States Constitution
"We are the change we seek." Nothing has been more eloquent and truthful if put into perspective. What change do we seek?
see this movie trailer
We are about to make history. Are we going to make the right change or are the people of the United States being wrongfully steered toward a good speaker, a rock star image, an image that is different than what has been in the White House, but without substance behind it that makes any sense to the U.S. or the world?
Why do people like Obama? He talks about tax credits and checks in the mail to American citizens when everyone is thinking about money and how they are going to pay for their bills and keep their homes.
Who Pays?
What is the definition of Capitalism?
Obama adamantly denies much association with ACORN. However you can follow the ACORN trail to Obama...
www.acorn.org
Look at the bottom left of the home page for
"Allied Organizations"
Click on Project Vote
See this article from 1993 in chicagomag.com.
Why don't people open their eyes and see that Obama is change...the change that will definitely change our country...the change that will cause our constitution to erode into the same dust our Founding Fathers are buried in. Don't people see that our country...this great United States of America...will become a socialist society if Obama is elected and put in the White House?
Sources:
en.wikipedia.com
YouTube.com
ChicagoMagazine.com
ACORN.org
ProjectVote.org
RightChange.com
hypemovie.com
see this movie trailer
We are about to make history. Are we going to make the right change or are the people of the United States being wrongfully steered toward a good speaker, a rock star image, an image that is different than what has been in the White House, but without substance behind it that makes any sense to the U.S. or the world?
Why do people like Obama? He talks about tax credits and checks in the mail to American citizens when everyone is thinking about money and how they are going to pay for their bills and keep their homes.
"Facts About the Obama “Tax Refund”
On the stump and in debate, Senator Obama frequently trumpets that his economic plan would give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut.
Here’s what this really means: Under Obama’s “Making Work Pay” plan, every worker would receive a $500 refundable tax credit, and every working couple would receive $1000.
Sounds good, right?
The key word here is “refundable.” According to the IRS, nearly one third of all tax filers– had zero tax liability after taking credits and deductions allowed by the IRS.
So what this really means is:
Under Obama’s proposal, these individuals - who have no tax liability - would receive a “tax cut” on taxes they never paid!
And guess who pays?
Is sending tax refund checks to people who already pay no taxes the right policy to encourage savings and work, or is it just another welfare program cleverly disguised as tax policy?
Some facts about just who would pay taxes under the Obama plan:
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, 62 million Americans – about 43% of all tax filers – would have zero income tax liability. Under Sen tor Obama’s plan most of those non-taxpayers would get a check at tax time.
By calling these payouts “tax credits” and “tax cuts,” Obama has created focus-group friendly language that muddies the rhetorical waters and forces opponents to go on record against “lowering taxes.” The fact is, what Obama is advancing is wealth redistribution – sending tax dollars to people who pay no taxes, with higher-income (not wealthy) individuals footing the bill. "
Who Pays?
What is the definition of Capitalism?
"Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market[2], rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation,[3] with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5] Classic unrestrained capitalism is confined mostly to theory today, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs[6] and state ownership of some sectors."Wikipedia - Capitalism
Obama adamantly denies much association with ACORN. However you can follow the ACORN trail to Obama...
www.acorn.org
Look at the bottom left of the home page for
"Allied Organizations"
Click on Project Vote
See this article from 1993 in chicagomag.com.
"...The most effective minority voter registration drive in memory was the result of careful handiwork by Project Vote!, the local chapter of a not-for-profit national organization. "It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives."
"...At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama."
"Obama shrugs off the possibility of running for office. "Who knows?" he says. "But probably not immediately." He smiles. "Was that a sufficiently politic 'maybe'? My sincere answer is, I'll run if I feel I can accomplish more that way than agitating from the outside. I don't know if that's true right now. Let's wait and see what happens in 1993. If the politicians in place now at city and state levels respond to African-American voters' needs, we'll gladly work with and support them. If they don't, we'll work to replace them. That's the message I want Project Vote! to have sent."
Why don't people open their eyes and see that Obama is change...the change that will definitely change our country...the change that will cause our constitution to erode into the same dust our Founding Fathers are buried in. Don't people see that our country...this great United States of America...will become a socialist society if Obama is elected and put in the White House?
Sources:
en.wikipedia.com
YouTube.com
ChicagoMagazine.com
ACORN.org
ProjectVote.org
RightChange.com
hypemovie.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama-ACORN, ACORN-Obama
ACORN represents the Democratic Party and its desperate desire to own the White House through use of any means possible.
Shouldn't the people of the United States be required to show an ID comparable to that which they would have to show at the store, driving a car, or any other privilege in the U.S.? If you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to drive, old enough to show ID for cigarettes, old enough to be in the military where the ID is critical, and old enough for other privileges, including that of voting during elections.
As we look at the United States and its money debt, shouldn't we look also at the debt in common sense, in honesty, in integrity, and in all other moral and ethical standards? ACORN is an entity that seems to have its own agenda for the country. Why would anyone want their affiliation to be extended to ACORN?
Well, in looking closer, although this should not surprise anyone who reads this, Obama has strong ties to ACORN. Although the Obama camp would like to keep distance from ACORN and say that Obama only worked on a lawsuit on behalf of ACORN in 1995, the connection runs much deeper.
ACORN is a key modern successor of the radical "New Left" 1960's organization. They are an organization hell-bend on entrenching America in their anti-capitalism agenda. Owning its roots to the National Welfare Rights Organization, they were disruptive from the word "go". Their initial desire was to create a "radical reconstruction of America's unjust capitalist economy" by removing eligibility restrictions on welfare causing the system to burst.
While those desires were based in the early years of ACORN's past, they are no less in-your-face today. Again, why would anyone want their affiliation to be extended to ACORN? Maybe that is why the Obama camp is attempting to down-play his affiliation to ACORN. However, with affiliations to Ayers, Wright, Hamas, and others, don't you think that, following being elected as the next President of the United States of America, Obama would revert to his old ways? Not only would he raise taxes and give rebates to people who dwell in this country who don't pay any taxes at all, he may even revert to the ACORN ways of municipal "living wage" laws, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks (veiled as combating "predatory lending").
Do we really want a socialist society? Obama's programs will create a society that is literally removed from most of its constitutional freedoms.
What is a socialist society? Wikipedia describes socialism as
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." --Obama, October 2008
Do we really desire to change the United States of America into a socialist society?
Sources:
Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.”
www.acorn.org
en.widipedia.org
"Many states have passed laws that go beyond the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and require additional, unnecessary identification either at registration or voting. These restrictions hinder American citizens’ efforts to exercise their responsibility to participate in elections. These laws include requirements such as proof of citizenship, government-issued photo ID’s, any kind of photo ID, or a broad range of ID’s not necessarily including a photo."--ACORN.org
Shouldn't the people of the United States be required to show an ID comparable to that which they would have to show at the store, driving a car, or any other privilege in the U.S.? If you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to drive, old enough to show ID for cigarettes, old enough to be in the military where the ID is critical, and old enough for other privileges, including that of voting during elections.
As we look at the United States and its money debt, shouldn't we look also at the debt in common sense, in honesty, in integrity, and in all other moral and ethical standards? ACORN is an entity that seems to have its own agenda for the country. Why would anyone want their affiliation to be extended to ACORN?
Well, in looking closer, although this should not surprise anyone who reads this, Obama has strong ties to ACORN. Although the Obama camp would like to keep distance from ACORN and say that Obama only worked on a lawsuit on behalf of ACORN in 1995, the connection runs much deeper.
ACORN is a key modern successor of the radical "New Left" 1960's organization. They are an organization hell-bend on entrenching America in their anti-capitalism agenda. Owning its roots to the National Welfare Rights Organization, they were disruptive from the word "go". Their initial desire was to create a "radical reconstruction of America's unjust capitalist economy" by removing eligibility restrictions on welfare causing the system to burst.
While those desires were based in the early years of ACORN's past, they are no less in-your-face today. Again, why would anyone want their affiliation to be extended to ACORN? Maybe that is why the Obama camp is attempting to down-play his affiliation to ACORN. However, with affiliations to Ayers, Wright, Hamas, and others, don't you think that, following being elected as the next President of the United States of America, Obama would revert to his old ways? Not only would he raise taxes and give rebates to people who dwell in this country who don't pay any taxes at all, he may even revert to the ACORN ways of municipal "living wage" laws, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks (veiled as combating "predatory lending").
Do we really want a socialist society? Obama's programs will create a society that is literally removed from most of its constitutional freedoms.
What is a socialist society? Wikipedia describes socialism as
"...a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly"
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." --Obama, October 2008
"The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more"--Michelle Obama, April 8, 2008
Do we really desire to change the United States of America into a socialist society?
Sources:
Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.”
www.acorn.org
en.widipedia.org
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Wealth Redistribution - Obama's Presidential Goal
Who would have thought that the United States of America would become a socialist nation. Sure, many of our Nation's people are having hard times. However, is it the American dream that some of the Nation's people work hard for a living and pay out huge portions of their income to the government so it can go to the people in the nation who don't pay taxes? Maybe some people in this nation have that dream, but the majority, I'd wager cash, don't think of that as their American dream.
With Obama, his idea is as follows...
So, are you willing to give up a piece of your pie? I work to darn hard for my pieces of pie to want to give it up to the government for redistribution...to become a socialist nation! This theory of redistribution makes success finite. In American, is success supposed to be finite?! Infinite success is the American dream I've always heard about.
Doesn't the government waste most of our "pie"? Why would we want to give more of our "pie" to the government to waste? If I want more pie, I don't want to have to give most of it to the government because I have worked hard for it. If other people don't want to work for their pie, they can do without as much as I have. That is not to say that I am selfish. I give at least 10% to charity. However, I do believe that you should have to work for your desert.
Please open your eyes America! See what is being presented for what it is! If you don't like Bush, you certainly will after electing Obama! If you think that the economy is bad now, just wait until you elect Obama! Were our Founding Fathers wrong in the constitution? Or, did they fight for these freedoms...the American dream...the right to have a dream...in vane?
Sources:
GlennBeck.com
AmericanThinker.com
FoxNews.com
With Obama, his idea is as follows...
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
"The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more"--Michelle Obama, April 8, 2008
So, are you willing to give up a piece of your pie? I work to darn hard for my pieces of pie to want to give it up to the government for redistribution...to become a socialist nation! This theory of redistribution makes success finite. In American, is success supposed to be finite?! Infinite success is the American dream I've always heard about.
Doesn't the government waste most of our "pie"? Why would we want to give more of our "pie" to the government to waste? If I want more pie, I don't want to have to give most of it to the government because I have worked hard for it. If other people don't want to work for their pie, they can do without as much as I have. That is not to say that I am selfish. I give at least 10% to charity. However, I do believe that you should have to work for your desert.
"The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well."--Bookworm
Please open your eyes America! See what is being presented for what it is! If you don't like Bush, you certainly will after electing Obama! If you think that the economy is bad now, just wait until you elect Obama! Were our Founding Fathers wrong in the constitution? Or, did they fight for these freedoms...the American dream...the right to have a dream...in vane?
Sources:
GlennBeck.com
AmericanThinker.com
FoxNews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)