Recently in OBAMABONICS

Category

"Then the others started in, clapping, cheering, and I knew that I had them..." - Barry Soetoro, 1980/81

"...nearly everything else Obama has said...is contradicted by the existing evidence. Which can only lead to one conclusion: Obama is not telling us the whole story. Why? What does he have to hide?"

READ THIS: Barack Obama's Close Encounter with the Weather Underground

Yes, Obama is associated with (if not defined by) Marxism. Read what he's written, listen to what he says (links in the following for media files) and peer in-between the lines of the plastered-and-painted-over wall that he attempts to leave standing as the facts of his life.

Perhaps he's assumed that no one would notice the gaping disparities in the life story, facts and absent, or in some cases, the hideous witnesses.

Wing-tip for littlegreenfootballs.


Related, I respect how the public is noticing the painted, plastered personna that is, today, "Barack Hussein Obama."

From the internet, a random statement from an alert voter, another American Joe the Plumber:

WHO IS BEHIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question -- where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.

When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack -- no longer Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

(Editor's Note: refer to the previous link, above, for the missing years of Barry/Barack at Columbia University, where no one remembers him, and, there is no thesis on record as having been written by him there.)

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Leppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko was convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

(Editor's Note: Obama gained acceptance at Harvard Law after Marxist, John L. McKnight, intervened on his behalf:

In a revelation tying Barack Obama even closer to radical community organizing...a renowned disciple of the late socialist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinksy wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied to Harvard Law School.

Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight - a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics - to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.

Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight -- whom he describes as an "older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties" -- but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as "my friend."

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (LESS than asking price). With ALL of those Student Loans, where did he get the money for the property? On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for FULL price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi, many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here...

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported (that) Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with and backed by Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'take care of things'.

...Remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news: on September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'my Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got online. If you would like to check:

Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question: if I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear: 'Beware of the enemy from within'.

mrunpc 10/28/2008

Of keenly related interest, read an array of information at THE OBAMA TRUTH FILE.

From Sweetness & Light: CO-WORKERS: "OBAMA INFLATED HIS RESUME"

...In the Barack-version of reality, Barack declares that he "had money in the bank" while working as a copyrighter (but he embellishes that title and job duties), while, allegedly, having all those student loans from his struggling student, impoverished years at Harvard Law School and Columbia University and travelling all over the world. Whew.

From newsbusters (and being aired everywhere but on the Obama-media), there is the following:

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday...

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

So the Obama campaign has come out over-talking and otherwise ridiculing anyone asking about this latest thud from Biden. Burton's the worst possible "spokesperson" for any political campaign unless the campaign is working to secure a fascist in office (you be the judge in that regard -- my conclusion is made, however, Burton is a rude, crude, motor-mouthing, epitome of inconsideration, so, thus, I assume that's who he's speaking for [Obama], also).

And, I thought that remark by Biden ("who wrote your questions") was the essence of condescension, as also, had me wondering what the latest Biden-suspected-conspiracy-theory was was influencing his delusions on-air (and otherwise). Biden is not a well man.

If a candidate (and spokespeople and running mate) can't answer questions outside their protected, manipulated and "owned" media, it speaks very badly about who that candidate and their campaign is.

The woman with the questions, in this particular case --- Barbara West -- made an extremely well-modulated effort in approaching Biden. I refrain from describing this as "an interview" despite West's immensely fine composure and skill, not because of any deficit of or about her, but because of Biden's idiotic responses, and, the crass, rude and crude criticisms today from Bill Burton.

Moments ago, I watched the speeches by both Barack Obama (or whatever his name actually is) and John McCain, LIVE from Ohio.

And soon after (going on now), mostly all of which are Obama-spokespersons making unreasonable denouncements of critiques by McCain of many of Obama's statements, as to what Obama has revealed his plans are.

An example:

-- McCain has (accurately) denounced Obama's Socialist/Marxist plans and intents, while a few O-spokespersons moments ago denounced McCain for doing so, laughing:

"...Republicans should save that for, say, 2012, when there's actually something there to criticise," ratioanalizing their O-criticques as also saying, "Obama has not said anything (in regards Socialism or Karl Marx political philosophy)...so criticicising him (as to those Socialism and Marx philospophy) is (then they laugh)."

This O-campaign ridicule of "the others" ("Republican" has become their buzzword for "undesirables" or "the other" in society) is intellectually unreasonable, though I recognize it's their intended (crafty, not happenstance or "stupid") strategy in attempting to perpetuate the "stupid Republicans" argument while also then avoiding discussing what Obama has planned (Socialism, Marxism-Communism).

In simple terms, this is the O-spokespersons saying: because something is described but it's name has not been uttered, then those making conclusions based upon descriptions of that thing is laughable.

Descriptions don't lie and it's efficient to act on descriptions and not wait around for potential enemies or oppositional interests to declare their names.

McCain declaring and opposing Obama's Marxist/Socialist politics is an accurate targeting, as also an accurate description of Obama's political goals and intents.

Because -- to state the obvious -- Intelligent, observant people don't need a certain hooded snake in the grass, when it's described to them, to speak it's name ("Hi, I'm a cobra") to know it's a harmful and rejectable thing.

Even IF it's wearing a nice-looking hood.

From Obama's own mouth, these words, affirming his Marxist intentions, his Socialist plans -- as also his Socialist condemnations of our U.S. Constitution: he describes Socialism, he describes racial discrimination as a sanctioned "government" force, he describes a Marxist replacement of our U.S. government by his preferences.

Obama's entire "class warfare" or classes-conflict thinking -- his whole indoctrinated frame of reference as he views our Western society -- is Karl Marx-walking. The very concept of "classes" pitted against others is a sucker-hold that defines Marx's philosophy, as it also defines Obama's socio-political perspectives and goals.

From, "Karl Marx Conflict Theory" (pervasive throughout Obama's ploy for "change"):

...Marx divided history into several stages, conforming to broad patterns in the economic structure of society. The most important stages for Marx's argument were feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The bulk of Marx's writing is concerned with applying the materialist model of society to capitalism, the stage of economic and social development that Marx saw as dominant in 19th century Europe. For Marx, the central institution of capitalist society is private property, the system by which capital (that is, money, machines, tools, factories, and other material objects used in production) is controlled by a small minority of the population. This arrangement leads to two opposed classes, the owners of capital (called the bourgeoisie) and the workers (called the proletariat), whose only property is their own labor time, which they have to sell to the capitalists.

Owners are seen as making profits by paying workers less than their work is worth and, thus, exploiting them. (In Marxist terminology, material forces of production or means of production include capital, land, and labor, whereas social relations of production refers to the division of labor and implied class relationships.)

Economic exploitation leads directly to political oppression, as owners make use of their economic power to gain control of the state and turn it into a servant of bourgeois economic interests. Police power, for instance, is used to enforce property rights and guarantee unfair contracts between capitalist and worker. Oppression also takes more subtle forms: religion serves capitalist interests by pacifying the population; intellectuals, paid directly or indirectly by capitalists, spend their careers justifying and rationalizing the existing social and economic arrangements. In sum, the economic structure of society molds the superstructure, including ideas (e.g., morality, ideologies, art, and literature) and the social institutions that support the class structure of society (e.g., the state, the educational system, the family, and religious institutions). Because the dominant or ruling class (the bourgeoisie) controls the social relations of production, the dominant ideology in capitalist society is that of the ruling class. Ideology and social institutions, in turn, serve to reproduce and perpetuate the economic class structure. Thus, Marx viewed the exploitative economic arrangements of capitalism as the real foundation upon which the superstructure of social, political, and intellectual consciousness is built...

Marx's view of history might seem completely cynical or pessimistic, were it not for the possibilities of change revealed by his method of dialectical analysis. (The Marxist dialectical method...

I could -- and would very much enjoy -- picking apart in practicalities and applications most if not all of that Marx ideology, but to summarize, his disdain and low regard for capitalism -- free men acting freely in commerce as they individually chose to do, self reliance, the whole concept of the individual empowered to act individually in commerce -- Marx's disdain for capitalism places runs throughout his opinion.

And if not placing capitalism in a lowly place, then, Marx throws his support toward elevating what he describes as a totalitarian government -- to what he refers to as "workers" -- and he does that by way of class and opposition among the "classes" or, rather, his "theory of conflict" ("change").

Marx's entire outlook can easily be meshed with that of Barack Obama's political goals (and with the rest of the "Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party") and it does not take loitering around by the rest of us in hoping for change to conclude -- based upon their assertions as they've described them (aligned with Marx's ideology) -- that they have in mind to replace our capitalist democracy with a socialist, Marxist state.

Remember the cobra's pretty hood.





UPDATE:

HOT AIR has a highly informative article up now, which includes transcripts of a few Obama-Marxist-quotes.

SMELLS LIKE SOCIALIST SPIRIT - TEAM 0 RESPONDS

Argh. View one possible future:

HELP SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION, SOUND THE ALARM NOW: 911 News -- 911 Sound The Alarm: Obama

But, funny thing, the future. It can't ever be proven. No one knows -- really -- what it will be, until it arrives. It isn't "real" until it's the present, it can't be described with accuracy until it's experienced, and, given human perceptual and memory variations, even after it's experienced, it's then predictably going to be experienced differently and described in variation, per the man.

Even more complicated is that once it's experienced, it's past -- the future: gone, over, now the memory of what was. Thus, whatever was "of the future," once it's known, is gone, over, lost it's "future characteristic".

So, when a candidate -- such as Barack Obama -- is sold to us voters as "the candidate of the future" (versus John McCain, who the Obama campaign declares as "the candidate of the past"), that's like saying, "tomorrow you may win the lottery so spend the grocery money today, because, that ticket is your ticket to the future."

It's like saying, "buy this house -- it's your future home! Credit, finances, money? No problem, it's the future house, it doesn't matter, because in the future, you'll have the money for your future house."

So it is as to voting for any "candidate of the future." Just as it is as to someone who claims to offer "change."

You never know just what that future will be, or what "change" will occur (particularly to you), and your vote for such a candidate, which is the equivalent of jumping off a cliff because you expect there to be bounce when you hit whatever is down there beneath (but you don't know what's down there, because it's what you'll know in the future, when you land there).

The only way to manage "the future" is to prepare for it, to do whatever hard, gritty work is required to provision yourself and others, to contend with possible outcomes. But buying anything that's sold on being "of the future" is a shady area of probable misleadments: wise people like to fantasize and imagine (too) but we also recognize the importance of receipts, the kind you can keep for future reference, the kind that substantiate things like terms, not possibilities.

All I can add is this fact from earlier today and mid-day yesterday (both, now the past): Obama spoke yesterday afternoon on national television, the market plunged; Obama spoke today with "world leaders" -- also widely televised -- and the market plummeted.

You be the judge. Think carefully.

Barack Obama is lying to Virginia voters today about the future of Medicare, about John McCain's goals for the future of Medicare and about Obama's lack of ethics about Medicare (and about lying).

But he's not lying about pie! He loves pie! He tells crowds everywhere that he loves pie. He loves pie so much, he mentions pie sometimes thirteen times in one speech, even when people are losing their jobs, their homes, have lost their savings, Obama loves pie! Financial crises...but what about pie?!

From his suffering dive circumstances while lodged at Catholic Charities' donors' expense at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel ("hotels of the rich and famous") in New York City this past Wednesday...

...Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne...

He needs all that luxury so he has the strength to lie about McCain and Medicare before voters in Virginia and talk about more pie.