Unreal... New 8th Grade English Textbooks Now Contain 15 Page Section on Obama!

This is getting really freaky.



The hard Left is already pumping out massive Obama indoctrination material in 8th grade textbooks. Maybe this was part of the Bill Ayers education plan? 8th grade students in Racine, Wisconsin are now using textbooks that contain a 15 page section on Barack Obama. Note: No Hillary, No McCain, No Palin, No Bush... Just Obama! This is beyond freaky. Real Debate Wisconsin reported:

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an www.obama2004.com sign.

Now I understand that many teachers are liberals, but does the school have the right to shove Obama down our kid's throats? All the kids grouped together and read the story. After that, they discussed it... I guess it appears that Obama is planning ahead. If he doesn't get his coveted Presidency, Obama is going to make sure, that the younger generations know all about him, and his "life of service".

If you would like to see the 15 page story on Obama, it appears that you can order this book online. There is a note in the book that says, For more on Barack Obama, visit the Literature Center at www.ClassZone.com The book is: Wisconsin - 8th grade - McDougal Littell Literature - copyright 2008. The Obama story starts on page 830. I hope you will take the time to look at this book. I'm really angry about this - In fact, I would love to rip the pages right out of this book.

More at Real Debate Wisconsin.

Source







Obama campaign scrubs site to hide ACORN lies

Is that what he meant by "Change"? And does it worry any of the Obama supporters that the "Fight the Smears" website has to be scrubbed on a near-daily basis because the "smears" turn out to be true? Here's the Google cache's copy of Barack Obama's official "Fight the Smears" website regarding the candidate's involvement with the vote-fraud specialists known as ACORN (currently being investigated in fifteen states).



Before: "Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity."

Well, that was the website before Audacity of Hypocrisy located a vintage ACORN article online..... Not only does Foulkes boast of Obama's ACORN leadership training, but also makes it clear that Obama's post-law school organizing of "Project VOTE" in 1992 was undertaken in direct partnership with ACORN. The tie between Project VOTE and ACORN is also something that Obama and others have attempted to disprove in recent weeks as ACORN has come under fire for allegations of voter registration fraud.

As recently as March 2008, the Los Angeles Times also made reference to Barack Obama's involvement with ACORN:

More here







McCain's Prospects Depend on Telling Truth About Obama

The media are piling on against John McCain and some pundits are predicting it's all over, that Barack Obama has somehow won the election. As the old saying goes, it's not over until the fat lady sings, and it's high time for the fat lady to sing about Obama's scary agenda and the many reasons why it is too risky to elect him president.

We need to hear more about ACORN, the special-interest group that would like to steal this election by registering people who are not eligible to vote, such as registering ghost voters in Nevada under the names of the Dallas Cowboys. Obama's years of close association with ACORN need to be known to the public.

We should hear more about Obama's political friend William Ayers, the unrepentant bomber and Ward Churchill-type professor, who has a really scary plan to remake the curriculum of public schools in order to turn kids into radical socialists like himself. Obama helped deliver big bucks to Ayers' radical education project in Chicago.

Obama has already introduced one bill in the U.S. Senate called "Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act," which would implement Ayers' social-outcome notions, and another to teach kindergartners Al Gore's propaganda about climate change. Voters should be reminded that Obama has called for making "sure your child can speak Spanish."

We need to have further explanations of the hateful attitudes Obama expressed in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father." We need further investigation of author Jack Cashill's evidence that this book was actually ghost-written by William Ayers.

The media have carefully crafted the several presidential debates to avoid two issues that are helpful to John McCain and hurtful to Obama: immigration and abortion. Let's get those issues out on the table.

Voters need to know that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This practice is so unpopular with the voters that it brought down the political career of New York's recent unlamented Gov. Eliot Spitzer and caused the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis.

The one debate where the abortion issue was discussed was at Saddleback Church where Obama revealed his unacceptable attitude with the stupid statement that a discussion of the personhood of an unborn baby is above his pay grade. What's really above his pay grade is the job of U.S. president and commander in chief.

Four-dollar gasoline at the pump and the need for energy independence by drilling for American oil could be the No. 1 issue in the 2008 election. It should be hammered home to the voters that McCain and Sarah Palin are on the right side of this issue and Obama is wrong.

American voters need to be told that the current financial crisis was caused by the liberal policies of men who are mostly Democrats. A September 30, 1999, news article in the New York Times explained how Fannie Mae, under its then chairman and Clinton-appointee Franklin D. Raines, took on "significantly more risk" by demanding that the banks give subprime mortgages to low-income people who could not afford the houses they were buying.

By the end of the Clinton administration, 44 percent of the loans purchased by Fannie Mae were these risky mortgages. ACORN accelerated this practice by getting unemployed people to demonstrate in bank lobbies, demanding that more mortgages be given to people without adequate credit.

Good U.S. manufacturing jobs were moving overseas years before the current financial crunch. The Clinton administration globalists, the policies of Clinton's Wall Street friends such as Robert Rubin, and the trade agreements that discriminate against American workers and products are all part of our current economic distress.

The American people should be reminded that everything Barack Obama proposes will require higher taxes. Only tax reduction and the encouragement of good U.S. jobs will promote economic recovery, not tax increases or taxpayer bailouts of the billions lost by avoidable mistakes.

State amendments for traditional marriage are repeatedly adopted by the voters. The public should be reminded that Obama opposes these amendments and said he "respects" the outrageous California same-sex marriage decision.

The Democratic Platform adds, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA is one of the most popular laws ever passed by Congress; it protects us from judges who try to force other states to accept the gay mischief of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut.

The voters should be reminded that Barack Obama is promising all kinds of costly benefits to be paid for by the already burdened taxpayers, such as his bill to implement "the U.S. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015" and "double" our annual spending for this goal.

Voters, not polls or pundits, will decide this presidential election. It's time to make sure the voters have as much information as possible about the candidates.

Source





Does Obama favor ex-felons over U.S. soldiers?

Question: Which is more important to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama - the voting rights of ex-felons, or the voting rights of America's military?

Answer: The ex-felons. Why else would Obama refuse to support the "Military Voting Protection Act," which would ensure that the votes of America 's troops serving overseas are counted, but instead supports the "Count Every Vote Act," which would override state laws and extend voting rights to millions of ex-felons?

This is just one of Obama's many controversial policy positions, virtually unreported by the major media, but laid out in detail in the blockbuster book, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values by Brad O'Leary.

In what promises to be the book that finishes off the Obama presidential candidacy, "The Audacity of Deceit" reveals just how Obama's must-vaunted platform of "change" would radically redefine American life and government - for the worse.
The Audacity of Deceit, released by WND Books, is brand new in the nation's largest bookstores. Printers have produced 100,000 copies of "Audacity" already and 31,000 have been shipped to retailers and book clubs.

"Brad O'Leary has written a book that will shed new light on a public figure who's enjoyed a meteoric rise with little scrutiny," says Eric M. Jackson, president of WND Books. "When the dust settles, we think The Audacity of Deceit will be the defining book on his candidacy."

O'Leary, former president of the American Association of Political Consultants, is the author of 11 books, a former talk radio host with millions of listeners and the award-winning television producer of "Ronald Reagan: An American President."

O'Leary's book suggests Obama's vision for change, if exposed, would not come close to what Americans are hoping for. "Obama has written multiple books and no major legislation, but that's not a coincidence" says O'Leary. "He's tried to hide his true beliefs from the American people behind soaring oratory promising 'hope' and 'change,' but that's just a smokescreen, and one that's been very effective. Until now."

Other books, such as Jerome Corsi's No. 1 best-seller, The Obama Nation have focused on Obama's past; but in The Audacity of Deceit, O'Leary looks to Obama's proposed future, detailing what America would look like if Obama were elected president and actually made good on his campaign promises. According to O'Leary, Obama plans to enact, among others, the following "changes" to American life:

* An increase in taxes from the low rate of 28 percent under Ronald Reagan to an economy-stifling 60 percent;

* An expansion of federal medical insurance to 12 million illegal aliens and policies that would increase emergency room costs by $15.4 billion annually;

* Health care reforms that would let government determine which procedures and operations senior citizens are allowed to have;

* A shift on the Supreme Court that would reverse the partial-birth abortion ban, preserve Roe v. Wade for decades, and threaten Americans' Second Amendment gun rights;

* Sweeping environmental measures that would take 25 percent of farmland out of production, choke off America 's domestic energy resources and send energy and food costs skyrocketing;

* A new "0 to 5" program that would transfer child-rearing responsibility and authority from parents to the federal government.

The book also publishes for the first time exclusive polling from Zogby America that reveals the startling contrast between Obama's political views and the majority of Americans' values, as well as evidence that much of Obama's support in the polls comes from voters who don't pay federal income tax.

Source






Why Obama's socialism matters

For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.

Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.

The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.

It helps to begin by understanding what socialism is not. It isn't Liberalism and it isn't mere Leftism. Frankly, those terms (and their opposites) should be jettisoned entirely, because they have become too antiquated to describe 21st Century politics. The political designations of Left and Right date back to the French Revolution, when Revolutionaries sat on the Left side of the French Parliament, and the anti-Revolutionaries sat on the Right. Terms from the internal geography of the French parliament as the ancient regime crumbled are striking inapposite today.

Likewise, the terms Liberal and Conservative date back to Victorian England, when Liberals were pushing vast social reforms, such as the end of child labor, while Conservatives were all for maintaining a deeply hierarchical status quo. Considering that modern "liberals" are seeking a return to 20th Century socialism, those phrases too scarcely seem like apt descriptors.

If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.

And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.

Although one can trace socialist ideas back to the French Revolution (and even before), socialism's true naissance is the 19th Century, when various utopian dreamers envisioned a class-free society in which everyone shared equally in what the socialist utopians firmly believed was a finite economic pie. That is, they did not conceive of the possibility of economic growth. Instead, they believed that, forever and ever, there would only be so many riches and resources to go around.

The original utopians did not yet look to the state for help establishing a world of perfect equality. Instead, they relied on each enlightened individual's moral sense, and they set up myriad high-minded communes to achieve this end. All of them failed. (For many of us, the most famous would be the Transcendentalist experiment in Concord, Massachusetts, which almost saw poor Louisa May Alcott starve to death as a child.)

It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.

Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state. Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state. Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered.

And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state. While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't. They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In my liberal days in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very popular to downplay what was going on in the USSR and, instead, chalk up fear of the Soviets to the foul remnants of McCarthyism. This was extreme intellectual dishonesty on our part. The fact is that life in the USSR was always horrible.

From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin. Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.

British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.

The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

Regardless of Obama's presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don't want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn't just another political party; it's the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.

Source






Obama`s Desperate Equivalency Gambit

One of the oldest tricks in politics -- at least on the left -- is to accuse your enemy of that which you are most guilty. Barack Obama has been taking a beating based on his personal and political associations, particularly with the terrorist William Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground, and his campaign has decided not to take it anymore. An article in the Chicago Tribune has launched a counterattack, claiming parity with John McCain`s open friendship with former Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. This line of attack has been making the rounds in left-wing circles, and the Kos crowd think they have found a magic shield to protect their anointed Messiah.

The problem with this argument is that Liddy performed an act of burglary at the behest of his superiors, a matter of political espionage carried out by a soldier who obeyed orders. He did not bomb the Pentagon, Capitol, or try to kill people as Ayers has done. Such a comparison is a stretch, to say the least.

It should also be pointed out that Obama`s voting record is in line with Ayers (Obama having the most liberal voting record in the Senate), while McCain is clearly a center-right legislator, far from Liddy`s viewpoint. Who is influenced by their associations? Obama is a radical in suit and tie; McCain loves poking conservatives in the eyeballs. Liddy may have held a fundraiser for McCain, but there is every reason to believe that Ayers is more than just a casual supporter; he launched Obama`s political career in his home, after all. These are associations that are radically different in terms of degree.

Let us not forget some of Obama`s other friends; Jeremiah Wright, who called on God to curse America, Bernardine Dohrn (Ayers' wife and partner in crime), communist Frank Marshall Davis. How about his connections with slimeball criminal Tony Rezko? How about his campaigning for Leftist Raila Odinga rel="nofollow" in Kenya? Odinga was part of an attempted coup in Kenya, and his people threatened civil war when he lost in recent elections (with murder and mayhem being perpetrated by his followers), so he was granted power sharing. (Obama`s actions in intervening in the elections of another country is of dubious legality, by the way.) How about his friends in the Black Panthers, or his Che Guevera-loving volunteers? How about his friends in the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America? Oh, and let`s not forget his sweet wife who has badmouthed her homeland on more than one occasion.

It also bears pointing out that McCain has been in the public eye for decades, and has never hidden his friendship with the rather eccentric Liddy. Obama is asking us to give him the most sensitive position in the land, and yet he has denied or downplayed his association with Ayers and other radicals. The dishonesty and lack of transparency is key here; to borrow a phrase which may be familiar to Mr. Liddy, it isn`t the crime it`s the coverup. Why does Obama feel it necessary to hide his associations? We have a long pedigree with McCain, and at least know where he stands. Obama is an enigma-by design. Do we dare trust a man who has so much he wants to keep hidden?

That this has cropped up at this point in time suggests that the Ayers/Odinga/Marshall/CDSA associations are hurting Obama, and so he pulled this rather dubious card out of his sleeve. If this election were over, as the media would have us believe, why would Obama`s supporters feel the need to bring this rather desperate attempt at moral equivalency to the fore?

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)