by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 19, 2008
And this is why we put our book out. I only wish we had put it out earlier and received more press coverage. Perhaps we could have informed more Americans about who the real Barack Obama is. Maybe the mainstream media didn’t do their job. But then, it seems those same voters knew a lot more about John McCain and Sarah Palin. Maybe the mainstream media did their job all too well.
According to a Zogby poll:
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could “see Russia from their house,” 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of “none” or “Palin” was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden — 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election — 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 18, 2008
John Zeigler put together an excellent documentary film, “How Obama Got Elected,” which can be viewed on the corresponding website: http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com/
Are you one of the millions of Americans that were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States? As we have documented in our book and on this blog for the past several months, the mainstream media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
Zeigler interviewed twelve Obama voters on Election Day, right after they voted, to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking documentary provides some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 11, 2008
Liberal politicians who tells poor and middle class citizens that they can’t have vouchers to attend private schools typically put their own children in private schools. And that’s the case with the Obamas. As reported in the New York Post, Michelle Obama went into DC ahead of her husband to look for a new school for daughters Sasha and Malia.
She has visited three elite private schools: She headed first to the tony Georgetown Day School, an ultra-progressive prep school where students and their teachers are on a first-name basis. If Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, are enrolled at Georgetown Day, Michelle will bump into plenty of friends at Parent Association meetings. The school, which is pre-K through 12th grade, is brimming with the offspring of several key Obama aides, and a rumored future attorney general, Eric Holder, is a trustee. (Surprise, surprise)
The Obamas are widely believed to be deciding among three schools - and the contest has Washington’s prep-school parents riveted. The other two contenders are Sidwell Friends and Maret.
Now don’t get me wrong. If I were in the position of the Obamas, I would certainly be looking to put my children in the best schools available. However, where the Obamas and I disagree, is that I believe that all parents should have the right to choose which school their children go to. This should not simply be a privilege of the wealthy elite. As this article demonstrates, many of the liberal elite in Washington, D.C. put their children in such schools, but then consistently vote against school choice options.
To learn more about school choice, and to get a free “School Choice Works” bumper sticker, visit: http://www.letparentschoose.org
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 11, 2008
Ok, this is getting ridiculous.
The Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda paid lofty tribute to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama by renaming the volcanic mountain previously known as “Boggy Peak.”
“I shall take immediate measures for Antigua and Barbuda’s highest mountain peak to be dedicated in your honor and renamed ‘Mount Obama,’” Prime Minister W. Baldwin Spencer wrote in a congratulatory note to the victorious U.S. presidential candidate on Wednesday.
The 1,327-foot (402-metre) volcanic peak rises over southwestern Antigua in the former British colony whose 85,000 residents are mostly descended from African slaves brought in to harvest the sugar cane fields in the 1700s.
“Your message of change will ignite hope and action in people of many countries who might still be passive in the face of inadequacies and injustice,” Spencer wrote to Obama, who will be the first black U.S. president. “Your election will not only transform America, it can transform the world.”
Maybe he is the messiah?
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 10, 2008
NewsBusters just wrote the following about what Obama’s Transition Team co-chair, Valerie Jarrett, stated on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program with Tom Brokaw this past Sunday, November 9:
The co-chair of Barack Obama’s Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he’s officially sworn into office. She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to “rule” on day one. It’s a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the “arrogant,” the “messiah,” that imagines he’s here to “rule” instead of govern.
Jarret told Brokaw that “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.”
To see the full video, view the NewsBusters website.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 10, 2008
The National Rifle Association issued this press release on Friday to let Americans know that the Obama administration is already on the move to ban guns and infringe on Americans right to keep and bear arms, as stipulated in the Second Amendement of the U.S. Constitution:
Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby–four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment–endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police–prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.
“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.
“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 8, 2008
Years ago, when Obama began running for President (ok 20 months ago), he promised us he would bring “Change” to Washington. His first move? He selected Washington insider, Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. So much for change you can believe in.
It is also clear that Obama used the Chicago political machine (you know, the dirtiest politics known to mankind) to get him elected, with David Axelrod serving as his top political advisor. Yes, we exchanged the so-called “dirty” politics of Karl Rove for a guy who used to be a political strategist for Chicago’s Mayor Daley. Talk about dirty.
And it is also clear the Obama campaign was well-funded by many Americans, but most significanlty by left-wing Hollywood celebrities, left-wing academia, and left-wing journalists. The celebrities and journalists probably did the most to help him. On top of making personal donations, they were able to shape the news most favorably for Obama and celebrities were able to help the kids think Obama was “cool.”
And the selection of Rahm Emanuel should please all crowds. There is a great piece in the Washingtonian about Rahm Emanuel’s background, including his highly successful brothers. You’ll notice his longtime political connections from Chicago, to the inner workings of the Clinton White House. He’s an inside the Beltway type - with ties to Hollywood as well. In fact, a character on the West Wing is reported to be modeled on Emanuel. Hollywood is in love with Obama - and he knows they helped get him there. Is this change we can believe in? So far, it’s the typical liberal crowd with another one of their own in the White House.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 5, 2008
“If there is anyone out there who still doubts
that America is a place where all things are possible,
who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time,
who still questions the power of our democracy,
tonight is your answer.”
- Barack Obama, November 5, 2008.
Just minutes after midnight on November 5, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama cited the nation’s founders in realizing that anything is possible in America. In a nation where blacks were first slaves, the American people elected the first black President. It is truly a historic night for the greatest and freest nation in the history of the world.
While my co-authors and I have campaigned through our book about the risk our nation would take in electing Barack Obama, there cannot be a single American that can disagree with President-elect Obama’s statement, that in America “all things are possible.”
While we still believe the policies advocated by Barack Obama are very far to the left; that his policy positions are outside of mainstream America; that Obama has shown a disrespect for human life at its most fragile periods, from birth to childhood development; that he has at times shown a disdain for ordinary Americans living in small towns, who respect the right to bear arms and to practice the truths of their religious faith; we still believe, as Barack Obama does, in the promise of America.
I will pray and hope that my co-authors and I were wrong about Barack Obama, because on January 20 he will be our next President - and as Americans, we must put our faith and hope that he will be a great leader that will lead our nation to better days. I hope that he will truly be the post-partisan President that America needs in this challenging time, and I will place hope in his call that we can all “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”
Tonight is a night to celebrate the eternal promise of America and to realize that each of us, as individuals in this great nation, can achieve whatever we dream possible. Barack Obama proved that with his well run campaign to seek the highest office in the land. As advocates of liberty, we will continue to hold him accountable to the limited government principles placed in the U.S. Constitution by the very founders that Obama cited on this historic night.
by Francisco Gonzalez ~ November 3, 2008
The following is a full excerpt from the conclusion of the book, Who is the REAL Barack Obama? For the rising generation; by the rising generation. Read this before you vote and pass it on!
“… Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics
the greatest number have begun their career, by paying an obsequious court to the people;
commencing Demagogues, and ending Tyrants.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #1
More than 220 years ago, a group of colonial leaders gathered in Philadelphia to construct a constitution for our young nation as it recently emerged out of a war of independence from Great Britain. Historians concur that these men exuded greatness. They were not only courageous to stand as rebels against an imperial government that gave them no representation in Parliament, but they were also men of great intellect. As Alexander Hamilton’s quote above reflects, these were men who were not only making history, but were well aware of history.
Our rising generation today is fortunate enough to stand on the shoulders of the many generations before us that built America. Of course, that “first generation” of founders was made up of such unique men, who were so intellectually equipped to put together perhaps the greatest document made by men, the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution has endured the test of many tumultuous times. It now faces even graver threats from a government that is beginning to be ruled by men, not by laws, reversing the standard set by men like John Adams. Today, it has become commonplace for just five Supreme Court justices to overturn legislation and create new laws.
Perhaps the most unique element of the U.S. Constitution is the separation of powers. The branches of government were separated and each endowed with their own specific functions for particular reasons. If you need any proof, we urge you to consult The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These papers were created to make an argument to support the new federal constitution at a time when the young nation was only bounded by a very loose construction ordered by the weak Articles of Confederation. But these papers – all 85 of them – go further, and outline the expressed purpose of every article in the U.S. Constitution.
Since our founding, great Americans have risen in every generation, to serve in various offices and on many battlefields across the globe, to protect the vision that our founders had; the vision of what good government looks like; the vision that created the ideal free society. Our founders wanted us to pass on the office of the Presidency to men who best represented us as a people. As Hamilton put it in Federalist 69, “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” While Hamilton was referring to the importance of the electoral process, including the system of the Electoral College in electing such a man, we can see the esteem that our founders had for the highest office in the land and the kind of people they wished to see fill that office (their ideal was George Washington). They wanted men of principle, men who could be trusted, men who would be knowledgeable and appreciative of the history of our institutions, and men who had the proper qualifications.
After examining the facts that we have presented in this book, it is hard to believe that the founders would have wanted to see us hand over the sacred keys of the White House to an inexperienced, ambitious demagogue such as Barack Obama. He is a man that we, as a country, have not yet had the chance to get to know well enough. He would certainly be one of the youngest Presidents, but his youth is not the only reason he is inexperienced. He has not yet been fully tested to make the decisions that are required of a Commander-in-Chief. And, just as importantly, perhaps more so, he has not yet been fully vetted.
We have tried to do our part in this book, given the demands on our time and resources, to put together the facts available and let you, the reader, have the ability to ponder such facts. We found it very difficult to gather these facts, as there were few media outlets that have reported such findings. We realized that right-wing talk show hosts and left-wing academics and media would each have their own talking points either for or against Obama simply based on his Democrat party label. But, Obama has talked a lot about the need for our country to try to rise above the typical left and right, and we accepted his challenge to do so. What we have found is that he has not done this himself. He talks a good game, but he plays quite another one.
We presented you with elements from his voting record during his time as an Illinois State Senator and during his few short years in the U.S. Senate. If you think we have presented any falsehoods or made any misrepresentations, we challenge you to hold us accountable. However, we are confident in our research and our sources, and in our ability to make the case against Obama based on the stubborn facts.
Speaking of facts: while Obama quite often talks about his time in the Illinois State Senate and the need to have an open, transparent government, he has done quite a lot to try to hide his own political and private records. He hasn’t even reached the White House yet, and he is already trying to hide records. What will he do from the most powerful position in the free world?
Due to his short political career and his lack of experience, much of our book has relied on Obama’s own words, from his published books, speeches, and interviews. After all, it was Obama who proclaimed “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.” We could have certainly provided you with the words of those most closely associated with him, such as his controversial preacher Jeremiah Wright, or his outspoken wife and potential First Lady, Michelle Obama. But, we wanted to keep this focused on the junior Senator from Illinois. We do, however, believe, as our parents once preached to us, that you can learn much about a person by who they are associated with. The questionable friends that Obama has kept over the years should raise some serious alarms. They include controversial preachers like Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Phleger, domestic terrorists such as William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground, and shady businessmen like Tony Rezko and James Johnson.
We simply know too little about this man, and based on what we do know about him – his background, his questionable associations, and his far left voting record – we are not willing to entrust such a man with the sacred keys to the White House. The American Presidency comes with an awesome power and responsibility. As our founders intended, this office should only be given to someone who best represents us, someone we trust, and someone with high character. Obama’s voting record is far to the left and way outside of the mainstream. He has shown a complete disdain for average Americans living in small towns and a complete disrespect for human life at its most fragile periods of birth and childhood development. He would overturn 220 years of sacrifice for a Constitution made of laws, not of men.
Our generation cannot let such a man be President. If “change” is what we seek, then it must be change within a tradition, a tradition of ordered liberty. We have strayed so far from our founders’ intentions, that it is time that we stand up for change and ask that our individual liberties be granted once again. It is time for a new revolution indeed: a revolution that gets us back to the proper role of government.
At the high point of their grievances, our founders did not originally seek to be separated from England. They simply sought to confirm their rights as Englishmen. The revolution they started began as a return to the tradition of self-government, the proper role of government, and their proper places in that free society. They were seeking change, not for the sake of change, but for the sake of returning to the tradition of a people ruled by laws, not by men. For this purpose, we write this book, to prevent men of ambition from usurping more of our rights, our property, and our liberties from us. We hope you too, will join our cause. The keys to the White House are in your hands.
by Brendan Steinhauser ~ October 29, 2008
Bill Sammon of Fox News has an interesting piece up on their website about Barack Obama’s affinity for Marxists. He points out that Obama wrote the following in his book “Dreams From My Father.”
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”
As Sammon notes, Obama admitted to attending socialist conferences in New York City.
Obama’s interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called “the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union.”
So when critics point out that Barack Obama is a socialist, why the outcry from liberals and the mainstream media? It’s clear that he has had many Marxist friends, launched his political career in Illinois from the home of a self-described Marxist, went to a church that preached Marxist Black Liberation Theology and had a Marxist father. Couple these facts with his own statements about “spreading the wealth” and “redistributive change” and you have a clear picture of someone who was exposed to Marxism, dabbled in it, and then subscribed to its basic tenets.
The truth is pretty clear: Barack Obama is a socialist at heart, running as a post-partisan candidate. Get ready.
