Powered By Christian Gifts

Showing posts with label Anti-American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-American. Show all posts

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Communist Paper Supports Obama

From Townhall.com
August 13, 2008

By Amanda Carpenter

A Communist newspaper is supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for president, praising his ability to “unite the working class” and eviscerate racism.

People’s Weekly World/Neustro Mundo made their announcement in an editorial titled “Eye on the Prize.” The piece argues, while Obama “is not a left candidate,” he is the best candidate towards advance the kind of “progressive change” the Communist Party seeks.

The editors of PWW/NM declared: “If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.”
The editorial was originally published on July 15 and reprinted online at the Communist Party USA’s website.

PWW/NM is a direct descendent of the Daily Worker, a paper published by Communist Party USA.

Note: Picture and accompanying text added for emphasis.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

High Gas Prices and the Marxist tactic of Crisis revolution

From an Article at American Thinker.
By AWR Hawkins
June 21, 2008

Karl Marx, (1818-1883), believed capitalism was the next to last stage in the evolution to an earthly utopia, which would be ushered in through revolution; a revolution resulting from the tensions that existed between workers and the owners of production. According to Marx, the final stage of this evolution toward utopia would result when workers rose up in revolution to overthrow the business owners who were exploiting them through a capitalistic economy. We know Marx's "utopia" and other aspects of his philosophy by their more prominent name: communism.

Marx's predictions grew out of his atheistic worldview; a worldview that made him hostile toward private property and the accumulation of wealth through capitalistic means. Although his perceptions of the exploitation of workers and his solidarity with those workers has been rigorously tested and found wanting by historian Paul Johnson, his support for communism and his hatred of privatization and its corresponding freedoms have been a mainstay of the Left since at least 1917, when Vladimir Lenin took them to heart and threw Russia into revolution.

Like Marx, Lenin pointed to the struggles and dichotomies in Russian society in order to postulate solutions; solutions to problems that were not always there. From roughly 1915 through 1917, Lenin repeatedly decried the exploitation of the Russian workers by the land and business owners. This "crisis" not only justified, according to Lenin's rhetoric, but demanded a revolution that would take power away from the land owners and give "power to the people."

Lenin's revolution against the "greedy" landowners was carried out at the end of a gun. The gun was necessary because the crisis Lenin saw was not a crisis that every Russian believed to be real. But as Crane Briton has pointed out in his work on revolutionaries, Lenin was willing to use force to move his countrymen toward what he thought was best for them, whether they agreed with him or not. Lenin's implementation of Marxism was so stringent, so accurately in tune with Marx's own predilections for government intervention in every facet of life that Marxism came to be referred to as Marxism/Leninism.

Sadly, this practice of creating a crisis in order to implement a solution has become a staple in today's Democratic Party. Although each individual Democrat may not hold Marxism/Leninism as his or her political and ideological paradigm, many Democrats in Congress hold to the resulting methodology and have adopted passing legislation as their method for revolution and their solution for every type of crisis known to man, be it healthcare, the environment, gun violence or energy problems. For the Democrats, every crisis is but a segue toward the passage of more and more legislation, furthering the revolution while enslaving the very people they claim to be liberating.

When Bill Clinton constantly perceived various crises which demanded solutions that involved the passage of a new laws, he was unapologetically using the Marxist/Leninist "crisis revolution" tactic to spur passage of Leftist-legislation. For example, with each violent crime, like Columbine or other public shootings that took place during his presidency, Clinton pushed for more gun control to alleviate the crisis but he never enforced laws which were already established. The National Rifle Association's Wayne La Pierre rightly saw through Clinton's façade and said publicly that Clinton was tolerating an increase in death and suffering among the American citizenry in order to force the people to adopt and further the gun control programs of the Democrat party. As a result, by creating a crisis sufficient to secure passage of his legislation rather than enforcing the laws that would keep the lives of many single mothers and low income families of every race safer in their neighborhoods and housing units, Clinton actually contributed to the lawlessness that made the streets of our larger cities more dangerous.

Clinton's presidency ended in 2001, yet the disturbing fact is that Marxist/Leninist ideology and method of "crisis revolution" has rarely been stronger and more dangerous among Democrats than it is right now. The current revolutionary cry is to tax the "greedy," American-owned oil companies for their "wind-fall" profits. In much the same way that Clinton spoke of gun companies in the 1990s, today's Democrats demean oil companies with their "shame on you for what you're doing to the American people" approach, while simultaneously refusing to allow domestic drilling, to increase offshore drilling, or to drill in ANWR.

Like Clinton, the Congressional Democrats, who have created the current crisis, will allow a certain degree of suffering on the part of the people in order to insure their agenda is furthered. They will continue to blame and punish "big oil" for the rise in gas prices just as Clinton blamed and punished Smith & Wesson for the violent crimes that took place while he was in office. Moreover, like Lenin, these Democrats will try to to push their agenda through even if many of their countrymen fail to place the blame on "big oil." With the backing of the federal government, today's Marxist/Leninist leaning Democrat party will implement their agenda through "crisis revolution" at the expense of the people by using scare tactics, and raw force when necessary, to silence their detractors.

We must pay attention to the history of Marxist/Leninist ideology and methodology. Lenin's revolution gave the people death instead of power, Clinton's pursuit of gun control endangered American lives instead of curbing violence, and the current path of today's Democrats will only result in even higher energy prices and therefore less discretionary spending by the citizens, which will result in a subsequent drag on our economy that could bring us down a notch from our superpower status; the latter of which has been the real goal of the Left all along.

Therefore, whether one considers Lenin, Clinton, or today's Obama-led Democrat party, the bottom line is in the end, the people will suffer at the hands of an office holder who uses "crisis revolution" tactics to further their Leftist, legislative agenda. This means we will continue paying excruciatingly high prices in order to give Democrats the opportunity to pull a bait and switch, whereby they can continue to lessen our oil supply by standing in the way of domestic drilling while simultaneously mounting a campaign against the "shameful profits" of American oil companies. Like good Marxists, they do this in order to distract us from the fact that all the class envy and bitterness that undergirds their policies is robbing us of a burgeoning, profitable capitalist society rather than bringing us into a promised utopia.


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Soldier Voting Scandal

By Robert D. Novak
July 24, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, on July 8 introduced a resolution demanding that the Defense Department better enable U.S. military personnel overseas to vote in the November elections. That act was followed by silence. Democrats normally leap on an opportunity to find fault with the Bush Pentagon. But not a single Democrat joined Blunt as a co-sponsor, and an all-Republican proposal cannot pass in the Democratic-controlled House.

Analysis by the federal Election Assistance Commission, rejecting inflated Defense Department voting claims, estimated overseas and absentee military voting for the 2006 midterm elections at a disgracefully low 5.5 percent. The quality of voting statistics is so poor that there is no way to tell how many of the slightly over 330,000 votes actually were sent in by the absentee military voters and their dependents and how many by civilian Americans living abroad -- 6 million all total.

Nobody who has studied the question objectively sees any improvement since 2006, and that is a scandal. Retired U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Charles Henry wrote in the July issue of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings:

"While virtually everyone involved ... seems to agree that military people
deserve at least equal opportunity when it comes to having their votes counted,
indications are that in November 2008, many thousands of service members who try
to vote will do so in vain."

Henry, now an independent broadcast journalist, has personal experience with this enduring scandal. While serving as a Marine at sea off Iran, he received his 1980 presidential ballot too late to count. President Harry Truman said of troops fighting in Korea, "The least we at home can do is to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being asked to fight to preserve." But the U.S. military that has so perfected the art of war over the past half-century is at a loss to enable soldiers to vote.

A combat officer has enough to do without handling the votes of troopers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Defense Department Inspector General's report in March last year recommended "appointment of civilian personnel" as "voting assistance officers." The Pentagon brass rejected the idea.

I reported four years ago that the problems of 2000 overseas military voting had not been corrected for the 2004 presidential election. At that time, Under Secretary of Defense David Chu was put in charge of the problem. During massive turnover at the Pentagon, Chu remains in place -- best known among critics of the military vote problem for his chronic failure to return telephone calls.

Congressional attention to the problem has been scattered and limited mostly to Republicans such as Sen. John Cornyn, who earlier this year decried "a lack of will" at the Pentagon to solve the voting problem. Democratic interest about tackling the problem might be tempered by apprehension that soldiers will cast too many Republican votes.

Nevertheless, at least one prominent Democrat -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- described himself to me as eager to deal with this problem. (Hoyer's home state of Maryland is one of the worst offenders, with ballots of only 4.1 percent of overseas voters counted in 2006.) Hoyer and Blunt, who have become friendly adversaries in a bitterly partisan Congress, conferred several weeks ago and agreed in principle on co-sponsoring a resolution aimed at getting the Defense Department moving.

Hoyer wanted the resolution to cover expatriate Americans as well as the military, and Blunt did not object.

They turned the issue over to their staffers and went about the business of major legislation. Blunt had instructed his staff to seek agreement with Democrats but, if not, to introduce a resolution applying only to the military, which was the outcome.

One presidential staffer who is familiar with the situation privately dismisses the Pentagon bureaucrats as "hopeless." In a lame-duck administration counting the days before a troubled eight years finally end, American fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan deprived of their right to vote constitute the least of White House worries.


Unbelievable!

Once again the anti-Military DemoRats are at it. You may remember the quote from Al Gore Jr. in 2000;
"The first lesson is this: take it from me, every vote counts. In our
democracy, every vote has power."

Uh-huh right you are junior, all votes count unless of course they are for a Republican or other than a DemoRat.

DemoRats did it again in November, 2006 ; E-Mail Ballots for Military QuestionedThursday.

Military stationed overseas and civilians can go to FVAP for voting assistance.

The Anti-American Fraud

ELECTION 2008


American flag disappears from Obama campaign jet
Candidate's trademark 'O' replaces stars and stripes

Posted: July 21, 2008
6:31 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

As part of a month-long aircraft makeover, a painted American flag was removed from the tail of Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign airplane and was replaced with the presidential candidate's trademark "O" symbol.

The refurbished 757 was unveiled to members of the news media today, 41 of whom boarded the craft and took off to meet Obama in Amman, Jordan, where the presidential candidate will stop as part of a Middle Eastern and European tour.

Obama traveled to the Mideast earlier this week on board a separate airplane.

Fox News blogger Bonny Kapp, traveling on Obama's new airplane, reported:

"The North American jet that flew Obama and his traveling crew around for much of the primary season was refurbished with new seats and power for each passenger a must on the campaign trail. And the plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama 'O.'"

Obama's 'O' symbol is red, white and blue.

Most official U.S. government aircraft, including Air Force One, have U.S. flags on their tails.


Both Fox News and the Chicago Sun-Times posted pictures of the Obama campaign's redressed airplane, which does not have an American flag or any other U.S. national symbols on the section that sports the airplane door from which Obama and his team will enter and exit.



The airplane boasts Obama's anthem, "Change We Can Believe In" and the candidate’s website address.

The aircraft also has required identification numbers and a U.S. flag to identify the nationality of the aircraft.

According to Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet, the refurbished Obama aircraft features a "first class" section for the candidate and his closest advisors; several "business class" seats, and a large coach section, usually meant for the traveling press corps.

Sweet reported fruit and cheese platters greeted reporters on board the flight. Dinner options offered were beef medallions, baked tilapia or eggplant parmesan.

She wrote the Obama campaign provided overnight kits for the flight that include toothbrush, mouthwash, socks, Neutrogena body lotion and lip moisturizer, Scope mouthwash, ear plugs and a blindfold for sleeping.