A German Lady Remembers and Speaks

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.

In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising "Change." He blamed the "Zionists" around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth. So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader.

Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him. Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would. The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement.

It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school. My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.

I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children. That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5.

'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to The nations."

Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. "With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!"

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were "no longer there." Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as "mercy killing" became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.

People whispered, "Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering.And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden." And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were "nationalized." (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Kristalnacht in the book Munich Signature)

The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change? Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction. What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children.

The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it. Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, "who could bear to read our suffering?" Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord, Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah. Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the "mercy killing" of tiny babies who are not wanted.

There are so few of us left to warn you. I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians. Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote? Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible? Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you."

I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth. I see them again now. Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion. In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their "tax exempt" status.

And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you "Cling to your religion." But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book.

I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble. I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school.. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)

Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barack Obama is elected. I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived. The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!

"Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!"

Source







Two quotes from the Obama-Khalidi videotape



You know the videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi? The one that the Los Angeles Times refuses to release? "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton...

How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript? I guess that's the kind of executive talent the newspaper business is attracting these days.

However, I received a tip from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.

"Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

Source






Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are-beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years-and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals-the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more-cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged-although not in his commercial-that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.

THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.

Source





Comrade Obama?

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen. Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks. If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it? A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor. "Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born? In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote: "There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not. This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

Source






Obamapologist denies Obama's own "Wealth spreading" ideas



Occasionally, it's good to take people at their word. If somebody says something explicitly, you should listen implicitly, because they tend to mean what they say. There is no further need to question their every answer.

And so it is with Barack Obama. He thinks "one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that it tried to achieve too many of its goals via the courts. This was good for achieving application of voting rights and the like, but not for "redistribution of wealth" and "basic issues of political and economic justice in the society."

Instead, he believes that a better strategy is to do so legislatively. Okay, we get it. He really does believe in the "redistribution of wealth." He wants to "spread the wealth." He has said it repeatedly. He believes it. He means it.
There's no misunderstanding here at all. We should take the man at his word.

However, Slate's Emily Bazelon would have one believe that when he spoke of "redistributive change", Senator Obama did not really mean what he said at all. As Mr. Obama's self-appointed translator, she explains that he "was speaking against the backdrop of an old debate in the legal academy, which was not about who should pay higher taxes."

Excuse me? The debate may not have entirely been about progressive taxation-one of the primary instruments of wealth redistribution-but it most certainly was about the best method of achieving redistribution of wealth, as Mr. Obama explicitly noted.

To somehow suggest that Mr. Obama's views on wealth redistribution are entirely divorced from his views on raising taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners is, well. wrong. Inaccurate. Misleading.

He explicitly justified that view-in favor of progressive taxation-to Joe the Plumber because he wants to "spread the wealth around":

"It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Clearly to "spread the wealth," you first have to take the wealth. But, Ms. Bazelon is undaunted. Her piece is titled, "He's Not Robin Hood." The subheadline reads, "What Obama really meant by `redistributive change.'" To be fair, perhaps this was an editorial decision and those weren't her intended headlines. Though they probably were.

Nonetheless, they are misleading because Mr. Obama really does want to engage in the redistribution of wealth. Some folks support taxation because they believe there are certain, limited functions that government ought to perform. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, goes much, much further. He thinks that the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates so that the money may be redistributed to those less fortunate-or those who simply don't care to work quite as hard, thank you.

Ms. Bazelon even admits it: "[O]f course Obama is for redistribution." And then, almost as if catching herself in mid-fall, she gasps, "So is any politician, including John McCain, who favors a progressive income tax. Governments constantly take more from one group and give more to another."

The controversy, Ms. Bazelon, is not over the structure of the tax code per se. That is a well-entrenched tragedy. It is over why Mr. Obama-and all other Marxists.or, rather, socialists. excuse me, Democrats-believe the tax code ought to be structured that way. About which, there is no misunderstanding: Senator Obama wants to tax the wealthy at higher rates so as to "spread the wealth around".

Senator McCain, we suspect, does not believe that is the proper role of government-even though he has in the past shown a decidedly unfortunate proclivity for taxation and even class warfare rhetoric.

So let us not conflate the issues involved. The controversy is over Mr. Obama's motives for raising taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners. Or whoever else happens to enter his crosshairs as the "undeserving" rich. There is no misunderstanding.

We got it. We'll take him at his word. He really is a socialist who wants to-as he has repeatedly said-"spread the wealth".
Next question?

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.)