By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Frank Marshall Davis

Barack Obama had extensive ties with extreme anti-American elements, including agents of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, in Hawaii and Chicago, according to two new reports released yesterday in Washington, D.C., by two experienced internal security investigators.

Investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein, a former investigator with the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, presented evidence Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American poet and journalist who was also a CPUSA member while Obama attended high school in Hawaii.

The authors, in a separate report, document Obama’s ties to radicals in Chicago who helped launch his career.

In a paper entitled “Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection,” the authors document that in 1948, Davis decided to move from Chicago to Honolulu at the suggestion of what they describe as two “secret CPUSA members,” actor Paul Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen Union, or ILWU.

In Chicago, Davis had worked for the Chicago Star newspaper; in Honolulu, he was hired as a reporter for the Honolulu Record, both identified by Kincaid and Romerstein as “communist front newspapers.”

(Story continues below)

<!–
document.write(adcode);
// –>

In his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama discusses the influence a mentor identified in the book only as “Frank” had on his intellectual development.

Obama described Frank as a drinking companion of his grandfather, who had boasted of his association with African-American authors Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during the time Frank was a journalist in Chicago.

Romerstein, in addition to having served as investigator with the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, served in the same capacity with the House Committee on Internal Security and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He was the head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation for the U.S. Information Agency. Romerstein is also co-author of the influential book “The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors,” which included extensive documentation of the communist activities of Roosevelt administration staffer Alger Hiss.

Kincaid is the founder and president of America’s Survival Inc., an independent watchdog group that monitors the U.N. and international terrorism. He is also editor of Accuracy in Media’s AIM Report.

Are you a member of the Communist Party?

Kincaid and Romerstein quote Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who wrote a dissertation on the life of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis was a significant influence on Obama when the senator attended Punahou prep school in Hawaii from 1975 to 1979

A transcript of a 1956 hearing before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee discovered by internal security affairs researcher and writer Max Friedman showed Davis took the Fifth Amendment when asked by the subcommittee if he was or had ever been a member of the Communist Party.

In the second report, “Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection,” Kincaid and Romerstein present evidence supporting their contention the SDS organization from which the Weather Underground organization and radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn came, received financial contributions from the CPUSA, which in turn receive its funding from Moscow.

Obama’s run for the Illinois state Senate was launched by a fundraiser organized at Ayers’ and Dorhn’s Chicago home by Alice Palmer. Palmer had named Obama to succeed her in the state Senate in 1995, when she decided to run for a U.S. congressional seat.

Nine years before Palmer picked Obama to be her successor, she was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, according to an article Palmer wrote in the CPUSA newspaper, People’s Daily World, June 19, 1986.

“There has been no explanation of why Ayers et al. played a role in launching Obama’s political career,” Kincaid wrote.

Kincaid and Romerstein present documentation that Tom Hayden, another major figure in the SDS, is today one of four principal initiators of the “Progressives for Obama” movement, which calls for ending the war in Iraq “as quickly as possible, not in five years.”

According to Kincaid and Romerstein, U.S. Peace Council executive committee member Frank Chapman “blew the whistle on communist support for Obama’s presidential bid and his real agenda” in a letter to the People’s Weekly World after Obama’s win in the Iowa Democratic Party caucuses.

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,” Chapman wrote. “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface.

Kincaid and Romerstein wrote, “The clear implication of Chapman’s letter is that Obama himself, or some of his Marxist supporters, are acting like moles in the political process. The suggestion is that something is being hidden from the public.”

—————————————————————–

By Brig. Gen Jim Cash:

First, Obama refused to display the American Flag on his lapel. Then, he refused to distance himself from his America hating, racist, and self promoting minister, the despicable Reverend Wright. Now, he is giving some lame excuse for not respecting and following proper protocol when our National Anthem is played.

That lame Obama excuse is, “as I have said before, I do not want to be perceived as taking sides”. Further, he says, “There are a lot o people in the world to whom the American Flag is a symbol of oppression. And, the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song—I’d like to teach the World to Sing—If that was our anthem, then I might acknowledge it”. I would sure like to know who he is afraid to take sides with.

This is the man who wants to become the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, leader of the free world, and role model to our children.

Please allow me to share with you the level at which our flag and anthem is honored on all our military bases. First, the flag is never displayed at night unless properly lighted. Early in the morning after sunrise, every military installation in the nation has a ceremony as the flag is hosted. Prior to sunset, a similar ceremony is performed where the flag is brought down, and folded with great care, then stored for the night. It is never allowed to touch the ground. These ceremonies are conducted by impeccably dressed uniformed personnel and accompanied by appropriate music. During the ceremony all traffic on base is brought to a halt, again, in honor of the flag. When the flag becomes old and faded, it is retired with ceremony, and burned. Military personnel love the flag, as it is a symbol of our country, and that is what they have taken an oath to defend—to their deaths.

Military personnel, both active and retired, stand and salute the flag as it passes by. I have seen wheel-chair bound vets struggle to stand when the flag passes by. The same respect is paid when our National Anthem is played. Sometimes, I wonder if our military members are the only America loving group left in this country. Berkley, you should truly be ashamed!!!!

I am sure you can imagine how veterans feel when an America hating, low life individual is allowed to burn the flag, or spit on it, or stomp on it with dirty feet. But, can you imagine how they will feel watching their Commander-in-Chief degrade it, refuse to honor it, and even change our National Anthem to, “I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony”???

How can we justify supporting a man who has spent over two decades attending a church, whose minister instead of proclaiming, “God-Bless America” in front of our children, shouts, “God-Damn America” over and over. Does anyone out there really believe that Obama did not know what was going on in that church? TO DENY IS TO LIE!!! Both right and left all know deep down that he is very good at that.

Never in my life did I think I would look at Hillary Clinton with any kind of positive thought. However, it appears that there is a group of people in this country so ill informed, so blinded by charisma, so deaf to nonsense, that they will support a far-left, anti-American, silver-tongued, foolish man with a Socialist agenda like Barrack Hussein Obama. He makes Hillary Clinton appear angelic. I realize that she is obsessed with winning and totally self-serving also, but I have never heard her say, or do, anything that leads me to believe she hates this country, or openly displays obvious racist tendencies.

However, I have heard Obama say several times that, “We live in the greatest nation in the world, and I am going to change it”. Again, my question is, “what does he mean by change? What is he going to change it to?”

I somehow understand the youth of America being taken in by a young, black, silver-tongued, motivational speaker. Their experience is limited, and their attitudes will change as their life progresses, and they feel the sting of a burn or two. However, I have no patience at all with mature Americans who seemingly cannot think their way out of a paper bag. I am speaking of those who go to rallies and act like groupies, applauding Obama when he blows his nose. FOLKS, WE MUST WAKE UP!!!!! There are good people out there who understand what I am talking about here, but they are remaining far too quiet.

It is time for these Americans to stand up for their Country, their Religion, and their Rights. No other nation on earth supports the standard of living that we experience in America. Every living, breathing, citizen of this country should say a little prayer each night recognizing how fortunate they are to have been born here. If we lose that standard, it will be lost because of the apathy of the American people.

George Bush has many faults, and has made many mistakes. However, it defies gravity to me that the far-left can profess such hate for Bush, and then show strong support for the likes of an Obama. Folks, if you think about it long, hard, and with focus, two plus two will normally make four. Another way to look at it is, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a friggin’ duck.

Jim Cash
B/G, USAF, Ret

UPDATED APRIL 8 — by Patrick Hynes

Another big “oops” for Sen. Barack Obama.

This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama continued his dishonest attacks by actually claiming he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq. He actually said “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, we did pull those quotes up, and in his own words, they clearly show Barack Obama’s dishonest attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama offered this morning.

Note that yesterday morning, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod falsely argued that Obama had never charged that McCain supported 100-year war in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-cXV4Z2Hrg

I guess all that “new kind of politics” stuff was just a slogan.

OBAMA ON 100-YEAR WAR

This Morning, Obama Claimed He Has Not Distorted McCain’s Words On Iraq By Charging That He Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq — And Further Extended Dishonest Attack By Charging That McCain Support 100 Year “Occupation” Of Iraq

This Morning, Obama Said He Has Not Made Dishonest Charge That McCain Supported 100 Years Of War In Iraq. MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you’ve distorted his statements?” SEN. OBAMA: “No. That’s not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it — he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/0

But As Recently As This Weekend, Obama Has Repeatedly Charged That McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq

Obama On Saturday: “[McCain] wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years.” (Fox News Embeds Blog, 4/5/0

· Obama: “And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes.” (Mike Dorning, “Obama Fires Away At McCain,” Chicago Tribune’s “The Swamp” Blog, www.chicagotribune.com, 2/9/0

· Obama: “[W]e are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years …” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0

· Obama: “[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/0

And Last Week, Obama Acknowledged That McCain Was Speaking About A Post-War Situation Like South Korea, Not A 100-Year War

“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/0

· Question: “But I think that [Sen. McCain] talks about it in the spirit of Germany and Japan …” Obama: “And we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years. And he’s used that as an example …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/0

Non-Partisan Fact Check Groups Call Democrats’ Attack On Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment “A Rank Falsehood”

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.” “The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. … On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. … There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/0

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.” “Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/0

Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Sen. McCain’s Position

The New York Times’ Frank Rich: “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.” “Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/0

Columbia Journalism Review: “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters — If Not Outright Lying To Them — About Exactly What McCain Said.” “Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters — if not outright lying to them — about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/0

New Hampshire Union Leader: “It Is Not Even Remotely True — And They Know It.” “You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true — and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/0

The New York Times: Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment. “But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/0

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said.” ““[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/0

The Associated Press: “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq.” “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/0

Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “[M]cCain Has Never Said He Wants War And Never Advocated 100 More Years Of War-Making In Iraq.” “[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine…” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/0

USA Today: McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted.” “[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)…” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/0

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke: “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard.” “Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. … What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/0

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking.” “But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/0

· Krauthammer: “As Lenin is said to have said, ‘A lie told often enough becomes truth.’ And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it …” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/0

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them.” “Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/0

National Review: “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time …” “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse…” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/0

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus.” “Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/0

By: Ronald Kessler

Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is.

To be sure, the wife of a candidate is perfectly free to have views that are distinct from her husband’s. But on a matter that is so fundamental to one’s being as love of country, it is difficult to imagine that Michelle Obama would publicly twice make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views.

Equally important, her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades. On the Sunday following 9/11, Wright characterized the terrorist attacks as a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in his church magazine Trumpet. “White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Wright has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in December, honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement, saying he “truly epitomize[s] greatness.”

Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals.

Those who think two of the closest people to Obama could publicly make anti-America statements unless Obama himself felt that way, are fooling themselves. To date, Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than a great orator, rendering the statements of those around him even more important in illuminating his true character and agenda. During his Senate career, he skipped 17 percent of the votes and sponsored only one bill that became law. That bill was to promote “relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

Bereft of official accomplishments, Obama has distinguished himself mainly by being against measures that protect American security, such as finishing the mission in Iraq. If we were to leave Iraq quickly, as Obama vows he would do, it would become a launch pad for al-Qaida attacks on the U.S.

Obama avoided voting on extending the Protect America Act, thus putting America at risk when immediate interception of terrorist communications is required. Last August, Obama voted against a measure that would have allowed the U.S. to continue to monitor overseas conversations of terrorists like Osama bin Laden without first obtaining a warrant.

If his radical vote had prevailed, bin Laden would have been given the same rights as Americans.

To this day, Obama has not distanced himself from most of Rev. Wright’s comments. In a statement supposedly issued to address the matter, Obama ignored the point that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and that Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader. Instead, as outlined in a Jan. 17 Newsmax article, he disingenuously claimed he thought the magazine bestowed the award on Farrakhan for his efforts to rehabilitate ex-prisoners.

Neither Wright’s encomiums about Farrakhan nor the Trumpet article mentions ex-prisoners.

Similarly, after John McCain’s wife Cindy responded to Michelle Obama’s remarks by telling a Wisconsin rally, “I have, and always will be, proud of my country,” Barack Obama told a radio interviewer that his wife did not say what people think she said. He then proceeded to rewrite her comments, claiming that she had meant she was encouraged by the “large numbers of people” who have gotten involved in the political process. Michelle Obama then made a similar revision of her remarks.

In her speech in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama said flatly, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am … proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

And what has been wrong with America up to now? That it gave Michelle the opportunity to attend Princeton and Harvard Law School? That it gave Barack Obama the chance to attend Harvard and Harvard Law School and become a U.S. senator making more than $1 million a year from book royalties?

Was it that America stopped Nazi Germany from continuing to murder millions of Jews? That America has provided Africa and other countries with $15 billion to combat the spread of AIDS/HIV and that another $30 billion is on the way? That 46 percent of all Americans classified by the Census Bureau as poor own their own homes, 76 percent of them have air conditioning, and 75 percent of them have at least one car? Or that America allows us to express our views freely without fear of being put in jail, as is the case in Russia?

A lawyer, Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of expressing herself precisely. In fact, she spoke from a written speech.

Those who do not want to believe she meant what she said — and that Barack Obama could not be so close to Rev. Wright if he did not himself believe in much of what he has said — are in denial.

The real Barack Obama is starting to emerge, and for those of us who are grateful to America for everything it represents, it is not a pretty sight.

WATCH VIDEO: LOUIS FARRAKHAN PRAISES OBAMA

HILLARY CIRCULATES PIC OF OBAMA IN TURBAN ..DRESSED AS MUSLIM.

OBAMA RAISED FUNDS FOR TERRORISTS—

HOW OBAMA BAMBOOZLED THE CHICAGO ELECTION COMMISSION AND HOW THE MOB

AND UNION BOSSES ENABLED HIM….

more –

Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

– He voted against banning partial birth abortion.

– He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

– Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

– In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

– Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.

– Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

– His religious convictions are very murky.

– He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

– Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

– Opposed the Patriot Act.

– First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

– Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

– Supports universal health care.

– Voted Yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

– Supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

– Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

– Voted Yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Would result in 20 million instant citizens never having paid SS, many refusing to speak English, immediately sending for their 40 to 50 million extended relatives telling them not to wait and obey the laws, the once mighty USA is theirs for the taking.

– Voted Yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

– Wants to make the minimum wage a ‘living wage’.

– Voted with Democratic Part y 96 percent of 251 votes.

– Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

– He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

– He voted No on repealing the ‘Death’ Tax.

– He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

– Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

– He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama’s and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.

…