David Kupelian
WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 29, 200810:32 am Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." – Abraham Lincoln
As Election Day rapidly approaches, many Americans are wondering why so many of their countrymen reject a genuine war hero with decades of experience, one whose pro-life, limited-government values pretty much reflect those of Middle America. Instead, these same countrymen are enthralled with a man who not only has no experience or qualifications for the job, but who is, in fact, the most radically left-wing major-party presidential candidate of our lifetime, having been mentored and supported for decades by terrorists (Ayers), communists (Davis), America-hating racists (Wright) and criminals (Rezko).
Doesn't make much sense, does it?
After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.
So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:
Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having announced publicly: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, making America the abortion capital of the world. Of course, you know what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate, which as I have pointed out previously would end all hope of overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.
He's hands-down the most pro-homosexual candidate in history, promising to back virtually the entire radical "gay rights" agenda, including the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, essentially throwing open the door to gay marriage in all 50 states. And, as he proclaims in his "open letter to the LGBT community": "I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." That will allow and encourage overt homosexuality throughout the armed forces, something military experts have long maintained will destroy the very fabric of America's armed services.
Sounds bad for Judeo-Christian values, you say? Dr. James Dobson's influential Focus on the Family organization analyzed issue after issue and predicts – are you ready for this? – "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" as the fate of Christians if Obama becomes president.
Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," warns the National Rifle Association, which points out that he has supported a complete ban on handguns, voted to ban most rifle ammunition, and supported increasing the tax on guns by 500 percent.
Obama would devastate an already deeply troubled U.S. economy. Jacking up taxes, as he promises to do, during the worst financial crisis and credit meltdown since the Great Depression is breathtakingly foolish. No wonder three out of four CEOs of American companies say Obama would be a disaster. Apparently Obama, who constantly badmouths "CEOs" and "corporations," doesn't realize it is these very companies that create over 120 million of America's 140 million jobs (the rest being created by government).
In order to throttle the troublesome talk radio truth-tellers who caused him so much trouble during the election season, and to reward his cheerleaders in the elite press, Obama will attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by resurrecting the horrendous "Fairness Doctrine."
Obama alone will be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory in Iraq. He is so weak, inexperienced and narcissistic, he will reflexively appease our nation's enemies and thereby encourage the growth of evil the world over. Millions will suffer as a direct result.
Then there's the issue of Obama's truly disturbing past. It seems that no matter how stunning the revelations – some of which are finally emerging, no thanks to a shockingly irresponsible and infantile "mainstream press" – they don't penetrate the public mind.
Regardless of the evidence against him, people remain entranced by Obama:
Amidst ever-growing evidence of vote fraud in multiple states perpetrated by ACORN – the notorious left-wing group with which Obama, despite his public statements, has long and deep ties – the Obama campaign's lawyers are now arguing that the Justice Department should not investigate any vote fraud claims until after the election. Instead, say Obama's attorneys, Justice should investigate those citizens who have brought to light the evidence of voter fraud, for supposedly trying to intimidate poor people into not voting. And no wonder: Thirteen of Obama's own campaign workers in Ohio have confessed to have fraudulently voted in that crucial swing state.
Despite repeated indignant denials by the candidate and his campaign, Barack Obama was once a Muslim. If you question that fact as just a nasty "Internet rumor," examine for yourself Obama's registration papers to the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia, reproduced here by the Associated Press, which clearly indicate his religion at the time as "Islam."
Much more troubling are the radical Islamist ties he maintains today, as respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes documents. Even rabid anti-Semite and leader of the radical Nation of Islam group, Louis Farrakhan, says "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" through Obama.
Which brings us to his most troubling association of all: Obama sat in the church pews for 20 years listening to and absorbing the anti-American, racist, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who claims, among his other lunatic rants, that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks and deliberately created AIDS in order to commit genocide against black people. Wright's rage-filled preaching of "black liberation theology" – an anti-American, anti-White, Marxist philosophy disguised as Christianity – filled Obama's mind and soul for two decades, and they have unquestionably influenced his worldview.
Sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for two decades and being filled each week with such venom against America and white people can fairly be called a form of brainwashing. If you doubt this statement, try spending 30-60 minutes on YouTube and just listen to random video clips of Wright's "sermons." Then, imagine swallowing this poisonous concoction, in person, every week for 20 years. It would be transformative.
One can go on and on, it's dizzying: Obama worked closely – for years – with William Ayers, a criminal and domestic terrorist who once bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings; there's absolutely compelling evidence – including independent scientific forensic analysis – showing that Ayers wrote all or part of Obama's best selling book "Dreams from My Father"; Obama received crucial funding and other financial benefits from notorious convicted Chicago criminal Tony Rezko; the Obama campaign refuses to produce a simple birth certificate to dispel persistent claims in multiple lawsuits that question the candidate's constitutional qualifications to be U.S. president – it goes on and on, and yet inexplicably, none of it seems to penetrate the minds of those entranced with Obama.
So again, the question: Why, despite a mountain of evidence utterly proving his profound unworthiness to be president, do so many millions of Americans worship Barack Obama? Let's take a closer look.
The magic of envy
In recent decades, more and more Americans have been conditioned by politicians to depend on government to solve their problems. This is how demagogues have long operated. They demonize "the rich," implying they obtained their wealth by exploiting the downtrodden; they stir up racial hatreds at every opportunity; they endlessly bash business and CEOs as evil exploiters; they promise "social justice" and universal happiness if only we will elevate them to power over us.
They do all this by appealing to anger and envy. They know instinctively that if they can stir up and ignite these dark, addictive passions in all of us, they will create a large voting bloc of people dependent on them, and thus be rewarded with great power. In its purest form, this phenomenon is called Marxism, communism, socialism – the spiritual core of which is raw envy. This philosophy of cradle-to-grave security and "wealth redistribution" exerts a powerfully seductive grip on people who have not discovered true inner "government." As William Penn famously said, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."
Communism, of course, is atheistic – where the government is the only true god, the giver of blessings, the solver of problems, the dispenser of justice and mercy. This envy-based, class-warfare-fueled revolutionary system talks always of justice, fairness, progress – but the only progress it delivers is from freedom to slavery.
This is the appeal more and more Americans have been conditioned over the years to respond to, as we have progressively fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that once animated our culture and institutions. The envy-based system Marx unleashed on the world is alive and well, and in different forms it still dominates large parts of the world. In America, it has taken root in the Democrat Party. Ronald Reagan may have destroyed the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, but you cannot destroy evil itself. Evil remains, and continues to do its job of tempting and, if possible, corrupting the souls of men.
Even the encouragement of immorality – free sex, abortion, homosexuality, easy divorce and so on – is all part and parcel of the socialist modus operandi, because immoral, dysfunctional people who have crossed the moral line and thus become estranged from God now need the "god" of socialist government.
All of this, my friends, is what we're poised to elect as president in the person of Barack Obama.
This has been coming for quite awhile. Americans, many of us anyway, have become increasingly corrupted over the years. We've been conditioned by our leaders into voting for lying, unprincipled, seductive candidates. We almost elected certified wacko Al Gore as president – someone who seriously wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Then we almost elected John Kerry – a super-ambitious, unprincipled and thoroughly unlikable man who first achieved notoriety by betraying his Vietnam soldier colleagues, scandalously maligning them as baby-killers before Congress and the nation.
Now, we're very close to electing an even worse candidate – and the reasons for this tell us much about ourselves.
The power of guilt
If you've ever studied disasters like the explosion of the Challenger Space Shuttle or the sinking of the Titanic, you'll find there was not just one reason, but a whole series of factors that seemingly conspired to cause the catastrophe.
One of the "aiding and abetting" factors in the current election is the fact that Obama is black. Let's talk about race.
Americans – even though slavery and segregation are long gone from the national scene – still have a large and understandable reservoir of collective guilt over its past exploitation and mistreatment of blacks.
Guilt is a fantastically powerful factor in all of our lives. It is a very uncomfortable, nagging pain in our conscience, this thing we call guilt. When we're guilty we try to relieve this inner conflict, and this is often a good thing. If we're guilty toward God, for instance, then we naturally want to make up for that guilt by finding reconciliation and obedience to Him. If we've wronged our neighbor and our conscience bothers us, that guilt is the valuable, redeeming factor that prods us to apologize and make restitution if appropriate. Without being able to experience a guilty conscience, we'd all be amoral psychopaths – literally oblivious to whether or not we had done anything wrong.
However, there's another side to guilt. Manipulative and unprincipled humans soon discover how to use our guilt to get their way. They can even make us feel guilty when we haven't done anything wrong – for instance, by way of false accusation, a tactic the left has perfected.
Now, Barack Obama obviously is not to blame for being black – or more to the point, for how people feel about him because of his race. But the fact is, his being black pushes the guilt button in most of us and we simply see him differently than we would if he were white. (Imagine voting for a white guy with such flimsy credentials and ominous associations.) With white voters in particular, there is a strong urge to finally move beyond our collective guilt over slavery and to prove, once and for all, that we're not a nation beset by racism – by electing a black president.
It's not an exaggeration to call this guilt-induced way of looking at Obama, this conditioned attitude, a type of trance. We hold him to a different standard, we see and feel differently about him, than we would if he were white. We have a kindliness, a desire for his success, a form of love and admiration and well-wishing toward Obama, all based on guilt. But love based on guilt is not real love. It's just an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of guilt. Shelby Steele, author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," puts it this way: "[Americans] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with."
Yet this guilt phenomenon is also why craven race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still command media respect as "black leaders." We see them through the "white guilt trance," part of which means we're really afraid of being regarded as racists, so we don't criticize these men for their blatant serial demagoguery. Likewise with Obama, there is a great deal of hesitancy to criticize him out of fear of being thought a racist.
You might respond to this by saying: But I don't have any guilt over slavery or segregation. Fine, but it gets much subtler than that.
Did you ever get angry at your kids – and then find yourself "being nice" to them to make up for the guilt of having been impatient? With that in mind, consider just one of many ways guilt (in this case, racial guilt) can find its way into you: Let's say you're walking down the street and a group of black men are walking toward you, and you become fearful (very similar to the story Obama famously told about his white grandmother). That fear has a little resentment attached to it, for that's the nature of fear. But when you become resentful for any reason at all, you automatically incur guilt, because resentment is a wrong, failing way for mature human beings to respond to the stresses of life. Now, saddled with this new guilt associated with black people, a compulsion rises up from within you to make up for that guilt – which you do by discovering a mysterious affinity for black people that wasn't there before. But that "love" isn't real love – it's all rooted in guilt and resentment (just like when you got impatient with your kids, then suddenly became "nice" to them to compensate for your anger). Although my example here centers on race, this guilt principle is universal. Indeed, guilt-based false love is the basis of the ubiquitous "love-hate relationship" that so vexes the human race; hate easily turns into false love, to make up for the guilt of hating. Do you get it?
It's subtle, but this is exactly the kind of dynamic that leads to self-destructive relationships – from personal relationships to electing tyrants.
The Obama News Network
A third factor, shaped powerfully by both the secular love of government and the white guilt factor just discussed, is the incomprehensibly unprofessional way the news media have behaved during the 2008 election.
In my estimation, we basically don't have a free press in America any more, other than the "New Media" – that is, talk radio, the Internet and some cable TV. Most of the rest of the establishment media have pretty much committed suicide this year.
Get David Kupelian's best-selling exposé, "The Marketing of Evil," autographed, from WorldNetDaily.
Just imagine that radical activist groups like the ACLU or the strident abortion outfit NARAL decided to start up their own "news organizations," complete with broadcast "anchor people," "reporters" and "correspondents," as well as newspapers and news websites and so on – and with a straight face they called their output "news." Everybody would laugh. Why? Because, while it would have the familiar form of news, it would of course just have the substance of their radical propaganda. No one would take it seriously.
This is exactly what we have in the so-called "mainstream press" today. The New York Times and NBC News, for example, are not true news organizations any more. They've become political and cultural activist organizations pretending to do news. And after having dropped all pretense at fairness this year, everyone knows it. This is why they're more concerned about Joe the plumber's tax bill than about the election being stolen by ACORN – because the elite media have become nothing more nor less than the propaganda ministry and attack dogs for Barack Obama.
Obama, the Manchurian candidate
In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.
Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.
Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.
In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.
America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.
Choose well.
May the Force Be With Us
22 hours ago
7 comments:
I don't know where to begin. It's like reading the rantings of a delusional paranoid-schizophrenic. There is no way to connect with someone who believes something so deeply that they will refuse to see differently no matter how much evidence to the contrary you bring to them. It is perhaps a weakness in the rational of their faith that can only be compensated or covered up by blind faith. I feel so sad for the person who wrote that, and for those who believe in what he says.
This person needs some serious help. Hopefully, Art, you tried to persuade him to talk to a professional. I agree with the assessment of the anonymous blogger. Paranoid-schizophrenic is putting it lightly. These types of people are the ones that can go out and commit a violent act since they're delusional enough to feel that it is within their power to right what they feel is a major wrong. Then they would be the hero that saved America.
And it is truly sad that there are McCain supporters out there that actually believe this to be true.
Pray tell where is the "evidence to the contrary" It is easy to say it is there. Show it. Do you have more proof then what you or Obama say is true. Most of the things in the article are well documented and the conclusions drawn from them in most cases are logically reasonable assumptions.
Perhaps some things he concludes are a stretch but it is clear to anyone who can connect dots that Obama is way outside the mainstream of America and will be the most radical president this country has ever elected.
I love the way you both can throw out names like paranoid Schizophrenic without actually rebutting anything the author said.
Then you throw out the canard that people who hold these opinions are dangerous and violent. More name calling.
I agree with the author on a lot of what he says but I also know that the only thing worse for this country then Obama being President would be for something bad to happen to him.
In any event next time back up the name calling with some factual refutations.
BTW I made this case before Kupelian did.
http://sonliberty.blogspot.com/2008/10/manchurian-candidate.html
Ok SOL...here's one rebuttal...
Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine
There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008 6:25:00 PM
"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
Personally, I would like to see Sean Hannity shut down completely because he's a dangerous man..you talk about outside the mainstream. Geesshh. He's the poster boy for the anti free thinkers of this country. But that's just me.
And please, spare me James Dobson and his lunatic rantings. Does anyone really think that Obama would put any restrictions on religion?
As for radical Islam, even McCain's group gave money to Khalidi (?)...
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."
How many would you liked debunked? Please, this person is obviously living in a delusional state where he thinks Obama is out to get him and all other Americans. He needs help.
Too bad you can't see that.
Again the fear tactics. Vote your choice, but does it all have to come to insinuations & name calling? There's so much on both sides, but sorry, Rove tactics just use out & out lies. The saddest part is that people believe them.
That is the best you can do?
He may have said he is against revoking the fairness doctrine but I do not believe he will veto it when congress passes it. In fact based on the way the Obama campaign has treated the members of the press who have had the audacity to question his Royal Highness I do not believe his statement. Actions speak louder then words. John McCain will veto any attempts to bring back the misnamed "fairness doctrine"
Did you bother to read the whole staement by Dobson. have you ever read anything by him. No of course not. If you had you would realize he is an intelligent caring Christian who happens to adhere to a traditional morality A morality that you liberals disagree with and the way you deal with that is to once again demonize the messenger. That in itself is the proof of the persecution that traditional Christians will face under a liberal Obama regime.
Clearly Obamas close relationship with a number of Leftist radicals, anti-semites, islamic extremists and terrorists (Kahlidi, Farrakhan, Wright, Odinga, Ayers just to name a few) is evidence of where his sympathies lay. I will be the first to criticize McCain for any relationship he had with Khalidi but we know McCain will be a friend to our ally Israel the same can not be said for Obama.
You simply do not associate with these types unless you have a deep antipathy for America and for Israel.
Obama is out to change America in a way that most Americans when they realize the truth will not like. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
If Clinton or Biden or someone like Harold Ford was the nominee, quite frankly I would not be able to say these things. I would strongly disagree with their policies but that is where it would end.
This is not based on innuendo or delusions it is based on who he associates with, his voting record and his prior statements.
Is this inciting? I hope not because as bad as it will be we will survive as a nation and have the opportunity to fix things in 4 years but if anything bad happened to Obama it would be a disaster for this country that we might not recover from. However If speaking the truth demonizes him then so be it. The truth must always be spoken.
Its YOUR truth that your speaking..and a little skewed at that. I also take great exception to your charecterization of my beliefs. I am a practicing Catholic, with a wife who sings in our church choir, so your generalization about what we believe, or don't believe is way off base. I have great faith, but that doesn't mean I always adhere, without question, to the teachings of the church. Unlike Dobson who is a stringent christian who really doesn't act like one with his intolerance of anyone that doesn't believe what he does.
You said I didn't have anything to point out, but the facts are there, I gave you a few, and you still are blinded by either your ignorance, or your anger to see that something different has to be done. McCain would not be different, no matter how hard he tries to distance himself. He could have been, but he sold out to the extreme wing of the party. At least Obama has never made any bones about being a liberal. McCain, for all his talk, has no idea what he is doing with his own ideaology.
As to the reporters, McCain has not allowed Dowd and some others on his plane for quite some time, so please stop with the hypocrisy.
I also think that he did this country a great disservice by chosing Palin for his running mate. He wasn't thinking "Country First", he was thinking, "lets appease the conservative base first".
Post a Comment