Tag Archives: socialist


DEMOPRISY:  the hypocrisy of the Democrat ideology’s reality. It’s real and it happens ALL the time!

Case-in-point:  Bill De Blasio, who was elected recently as New York’s new mayor with 73 percent of the vote has stated his first order of business is to shut down all the non-Planned Parenthood crisis pregnancy centers. Why? Because they don’t perform abortions. You see a crisis pregnancy center gives its patients all the information needed to make a real decision before ending the life of a baby in the womb. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t make millions of dollars like Planned Parenthood does so they can’t buy as many politicians.

The hypocrisy comes in when Democrats use terms like “equality.” Equality means “the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Let’s focus on equal opportunities, because that’s what everyone tells me Republicans are not into.

This new Democratic Mayor wants to give free space to Planned Parenthood on city-owned property and he wants to shut down crisis pregnancy centers. Does this sound like “equal opportunity”?

What are you afraid of Mr. De Blasio? Give women all the information. Allow them to understand what that “blob of cells” they are carrying really is. Let them see the sonogram pictures of the “blob of cells.” Let them read all the reports, the ones from the left that say the baby feels no pain, as well as the reports from doctors on the right that show that the babies feel the pain at as soon as 8 weeks.

He calls the pro-life pregnancy centers a “sham” because they don’t provide enough abortions to keep up with demand. Does he mean the demand of those irresponsible couples who refuse to take the proper precautions if they really don’t want to do what nature and God intended?

And, to top it off, he expects the government to pay for it all. Isn’t that nice? Just so New Yorkers don’t have to be careful at all. Free sex, free drugs, and free abortion.

Remember, we were promised that ObamaCare wouldn’t pay for abortions but states can add in that provision and that’s what he is going to do. I predict New York City will be a cesspool within 4 years, back to the days before Rudy Giuliani, mark my words.

This Socialist law breaker who just became mayor has no shame and no integrity. He is a self-proclaimed, card-carrying Democrat-Socialist. He traveled to the Soviet Union as a student and honeymooned with his wife, in violation of the travel ban, in Cuba. It was against the law!

According to a recent article in LifeSiteNews, the mayor-elect spent many of his early adult years traveling “to Nicaragua, where he supplied the Communist Sandinistas – whom he called “really inspirational” – and their allies with funds and food while working with the Quixote Center, a Maryland-based leftist Catholic group that once referred to American opposition to Communist leadership in Nicaragua as “spreading terrorism.”” Just amazing!

Do you really think this person is who our founding fathers had in mind to govern us?

Mr. De Blasio has been elected to one of the largest American cities. He was elected because of the freedom and liberty afforded him by real Americans who fought and died for liberty and democracy. He supports and endorses oppressive communist countries, believes in socialism, and can’t find the truth with both hands and a manual.

People like Mr. De Blasio are why this country is in the trouble it is. They want to wipe out the very freedoms that allowed Mr. De Blasio to win one of the most powerful seats in the country. They are so sure they know what needs to be done to the country that they are willing to ruin it to prove their points.

America… WAKE UP! Please! PAY ATTENTION! And make sure the people you vote for can, and will, do the job the REAL way… the American way!

Abortion debate returns to Texas legislature

Governor Rick Perry has called another special session in Texas to consider the abortion issue again. Protesters on both sides of the debate swarmed around the state capital, in the hope of swaying the legislators inside.

As reported by the Washington Post:

Used with permission. Copyright Felicia Winfree Cravens

Used with permission. Copyright Felicia Winfree Cravens

With 30 days and the majority of state lawmakers on their side, Republicans are almost assured success as they seek to pass restrictions that would ban abortions starting 20 weeks after fertilization and require clinics performing the procedure to meet costly new requirements that could put many of them out of business.

“The Texas Legislature is poised to finish its history-making work this year by passing legislation to protect the unborn and women’s health,” Gov. Rick Perry (R) said in a statement.

In the first special session, the measure didn’t make it to the Senate for final approval until the last day, giving state Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) the window — and the national stage — to filibuster the measure to defeat.

“I was lucky enough to be able to make the choices in my life that I knew would work for me,” Davis told supporters Monday, responding to Perry’s suggestion that, as a teenage mother herself, she should’ve “learned from her own example.”

The new versions of the bill — House Bill 2 by state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R-Parker) and Senate Bill 1 by state Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) — are headed for committee hearings.

The “costly new requirements”, if the new bills are similar to SB-5, include requirements that all clinics has physicians on staff that also have privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility, and increased accountability for the clinics and their employees to ensure the safety of patients. Additionally, all penalties are levied against physicians and clinics, not patients. SB-5 cited fetal pain as the purpose of the legislation. It was not mentioned that according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, 1.5% of all abortions in 2006 were performed after the 20-week limit being considered in Texas, or that complications increase significantly the longer a woman waits to have an abortion.

The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.

Used with permission. Copyright Felicia Winfree Cravens

Used with permission. Copyright Felicia Winfree Cravens

While protesters against this legislation may want to claim that they are for women’s health, objecting to increased oversight and accountability in clinics does not exactly square with that ideal. Also, given the low number of women that tend to have abortions at that stage of pregnancy, and the increased probability of complications, including death of the woman, the argument tends to fall flat. After the Kermit Gosnell case in Pennsylvania, it would have been hoped that all women, regardless of their opinion on abortion, would want to do anything to prevent similar situations from happening again, which is exactly what the current bill under consideration would do. Time will tell, but if there are no significant changes on the floor in the Texas legislature, this measure will undoubtedly pass, and will not be stolen again by an unruly mob.

Kabuki Theater: Is the GOP “Controlled Opposition”?


During the entire torturous game of shadow puppets that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party played in the run-up to the disastrous fiscal cliff deal, every single conservative knew how it would play out. The president would make some outrageous demands, pretend to compromise, and get basically everything he wanted from an effectively complicit Republican Party.

This play has been run so many times in Washington the last few decades, from George H.W. Bush onward, that one has to wonder if there is any actual opposition in either party or in the mainstream media to America’s obvious lurch towards a socialist police state.

It begs the question: Is the Republican Party a legitimate opposition party? Or has the GOP been captured by socialists and is being used to promote their agenda? Seems like a bit too Robert Zemeckis for most Americans to buy, unless one can get past the slick interchange of left-wing terms like “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “liberalism.”

But why can’t it happen here? Nations all over the world have been captured by socialists: Russia, Serbia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Cuba, Greece, Spain, Britain, and France — that’s just to name a few of the more obvious examples. It’s not to say the severity of socialism is the same: just like with diseases, peoples have varying immune responses, resistance, and coping mechanisms for dealing with the communist disorder.

America is pretty far along in its descent into collectivism. Thirty years ago, one could have said the same thing. But the Cold War kept Americans’ resistance high. Perhaps when the U.S.S.R. formally disbanded, leaving in place many of the same faces from its KGB apparatus, and the cause of radical environmentalism mysteriously appeared from out of nowhere on the UN stage, people began to lower their defenses.

The proof of the left’s effectiveness can be shown by the last few elections. President Obama has a well-explored socialist past, including but not limited to proven affiliation with the socialist New Party in Illinois. The president never had a noticeable public “coming out party,” when he rejected socialism and embraced the U.S.’ system of Constitutional government (on the contrary). Occasionally, President Obama mouths the words ‘free enterprise,’ but these empty words have no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Yet the mainstream media, let alone the Republican Party, rarely if ever mention the president’s radical leftist associations and tendencies. Speculatively, one must consider the possibility that the GOP is being used as a willing scapegoat in a socialist ruse called “controlled opposition.”

Alternatively, another way of putting it is that there are a significant number of members of the Republican Party who pretend to be on board with Constitutional government and free economy, but who are actually leftists or so-called “progressives.” They knowingly lie about their ideological loyalties, and then vote against liberty on key issues — whether on national security items or social welfare spending. From a theoretical standpoint, the problem is thus both ideological and practical.

In order to understand the argument that the Republican Party could essentially be “captured” by socialists (whether through ideological or operative influence), a bit of background information is needed. Below is an excerpt from Theodore Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” The entry of 45 Current Communist Goals into the 1963 Congressional record by Representative Herlong, Jr. of Florida can be found here.

Below lists some of the major entries:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (See recent article, “Professor calls for abolition of Constitution.”)

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“united force”] to solve economic, political or social problems.

If the Congressional record isn’t enough of a trustworthy source, one could go right to a primary document — the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a critical mind can see most of the planks from the manifesto have been implemented with a stunning degree of success. But let’s address specifically the socialist tactic of “controlled opposition.”

Socialist regimes struggling to maintain legitimacy sometimes use the fake appearance of democracy and choice, as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. This theory actually explains the behavior of Republicans much better than the alternative hypothesis that the GOP actually cares about this country and its Constitution or the null hypothesis that the Republican Party is not controlled by socialists.

When Republican politicians like Governor Chris Christie hyperventilate about a bloated Superstorm Sandy relief bill, bemoaning that Republicans don’t care about those suffering in his state, that is a perfectly socialist thing to say. When Peter King goes on CNN and sobs about this porked-up $60 billion spending bill being held up by House Republicans, and he argues like it is assumed that politicians should be visiting states like New York to buy off voters, that is also a perfectly socialist thing to say. When King slams the GOP, sabotaging its role as an opposition party from within, one that presumably disagrees with runaway spending of taxpayers’ money, again — this is all too predictable from a socialist orchestration standpoint.

The question becomes: How would lying socialists act any different?

There is the alternative explanation that these politicians are ideologically subverted and are simply unable to understand what role they are playing in this left-wing charade. Personally, this is hard to believe, because it’s all so obvious and calculated for those who know anything about socialism and communism. Witness the thousands of East European, Russian, and Cuban emigres screaming about the socialist tendencies of the Democrat Party and the new tone of American politics.

Unfortunately, there are really hardly any contradictions to the theory that the Republicans are unopposed to socialism. What would it really take for a majority of representatives in the Congress to oppose the obvious maneuver to bankrupt the country and put the infrastructure in place for a communist police state? All it takes are votes, and yet we all wring our hands as if it would be an act of bravado akin to Mission Impossible.

Government never gets reduced in size, and the budget hardly ever get seriously cut, regardless of the public outcry or danger to the public finances. Yes, politicians may be cowards, but they are also not idiots. They have children and grandchildren too, and they must assume that it is better to be in the government, than out of it.

Thus, several prominent Republicans revolting would be consistent at this Destabilization stage in what KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called the Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-Normalization paradigm of communist subversion. It would be textbook salami tactics from the party infiltrators.

Those who observe Russian politics understand that there are foil parties — ultra-nationalist and communist parties that play a role in making the regime seem reasonable —  as well as fake political opposition candidates who are actually lapdogs of the Kremlin. The last election that brought back former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin into formal power from his position of de facto power is an excellent case-in-point. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov appeared out of nowhere to run against Putin, right in the midst or roiling protests precisely against the stage-managed farce of Russian “democracy.” (Interestingly enough, it appears that the Obama campaign even borrowed its ‘first vote’ deflower power idea from some of Putin’s more amorous ads.)

On the ideological side of the equation, the left-right dichotomy is thoroughly corrupt, as it is framed and reinforced by corporate-run mainstream media. Corporations, for the record, are not necessarily supporters of “capitalism,” as demonstrated by the bailout and stimulus spending debacles. But no longer is the fight in the main public forum between left-wing statists and Constitution-supporting freedom fighters; but rather it is between fighters for the police state on one hand, and fighters for the welfare state on the other.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that this deadly dance ultimately leads to a totalitarian basketcase; after both parties get through trading quid pro quo votes in fake opposition kabuki theater, the result is a massive Department of Homeland Security under the sole authority of the executive branch and a media clamoring for gun confiscation at the first sight of any inevitable mass murder or other horrific gun crime.

The two parties are blending together in an act the communists called “convergence” — which is a mind-trick that normalizes the psychological perception of behavior through false dichotomies and calculated dialectics. This incremental tactic pushes the hard left narrative ever more into the mainstream of political awareness, due to the exclusion of rational, conservative alternatives.

The university education system, for example, plays a role in this process by censoring pro-market or pro-Constitutional materials out of syllabi and class discussions. The debate is framed between the hard left and the soft left, as if those perspectives are the only two alternatives. Political correctness and intimidation guides the conversation ever more to the hard left, specifically through the use of rhetorical tactics like the Delphi Technique.

This “convergence” is also the grand strategy for (former) communist states like China and former avowedly communist states like present day former KGB-run Russia. While these states introduce cosmetic market and democratic reforms, they remove the perception of threat that comes from communist infiltration and subversion (not that these states have to do much of anything nowadays to feed this — their guy is already in place). Communism becomes an archaic concern; it is removed from visibility, and repackaged under the guise of UN-led initiatives like radical environmentalism. Pivoting from staunch Cold War foe to mutual allies in forming an unaccountable world government takes “flexibility,” which could only come from a “reset” of relations.

When one examines the United Nations, and researches who formed the body, one finds that known socialists like Lauchlin Currie, Edouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov were instrumental in the mission. With Keynesianism being institutionalized at Bretton Woods, a slow war of attrition against capitalism was ensured, using the Federal Reserve (a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto) as a transmission belt to stretch the dollar to its breaking point, meanwhile eroding property rights and other aspects of free economy.

It is such the case that the federal government effectively owns the monetary system, owns “capital,” and thus, owns “capitalism.” We are all basically slaves to this ignoble machine. The government is micro-managing the economy into foreseeable and avoidable disaster.

Conclusively, numerous politicians in both parties are pushing America towards socialism on purpose. Where is the outcry from the Republican Party? Where is the outrage at the spending? What about the police state and our rights? If these politicians actually felt something must be said or done, they would find a way to make it happen. Instead, most Republicans are silent as church mouses, folding their hands or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

One has to hand it to the leftists — their sick, twisted plan has come off brilliantly. There are so many ignoramuses and “half-baked intellectuals” out there who are unmoved by any appeal to rational self-interest, that it doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you hit them with, they won’t ‘get it’ until a black boot kicks them in their fat bottoms.

Communist Goals Are Being Met In America

If you think the terms such as social justice, social engineering, social fairness or anything else with the word social in it has nothing to do with Socialism, Communism, or Marxism, then you are either naïve, or you are one, and you are trying to hide it. Just like alcoholics refuse to admit they are one, Socialist’s also refuse to admit they are one, at least to the public, when they are in groups they brag about it.

I recently received a copy of a movie from a friend titled, Agenda; Grinding America Down. It is an excellent movie; I will provide the link at the bottom.  In the movie, they talk about a book from 1958 called The Naked Communist. In the book, they list 45 goals that communists must achieve in order to get a foot hold and eventually take over in non-Communist countries. A chill went down went up my spine when I started to read the list, just take a look at the few I have listed here. Now remember, these are goals of the Communist Party set back in 1958, all the ones I have listed have already been injected into our society and are part of our everyday lives. You can see the entire list Here

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.

Is that scary or what, all this has already crept into our lives and we sit by and ignore it, how many of us even realize this has been going on? Many people will laugh or say this does not mean anything, but that is exactly how it starts. Like the Mafia, Socialists are doing their best work undercover when no one is paying attention. Look back at history, all dictators start out this way, then WAM.

Remember, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists are all cut from the same hunk of wood.

If you think that Socialism is not alive and well in America, you are totally mistaken. There is even a representative of the Socialist Party living in the White House and that is very scary.

If you are interested in watching the movie grab some popcorn, because it is an hour and a half long, but you won’t be disappointed.  Here


This is one man’s opinion.

Are The Democrats Preparing Us For A New World Order?

There is no doubt in my mind at this point, the Democratic Party has moved even closer to becoming the Socialist Party. The topics at the Democratic Convention were the Reliance on Government, the Praise of Government, and the Central Role of Government that the Democrats envision for the future of the United States of America. Just like a Socialist society, their message is that the government is the focal point of all things. In Lincolns Gettysburg Address Lincoln stated that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but it seems the Democrats want to change that to, of the government, by the government, for the government. It is the people who make this country great, not the government. My grandfather told me once that it is not people who are bad, but that their governments are.

God is no longer on the Democrats Platform, with 85% of this country calling themselves Christians, why would they do something like that? Could it be that they are deliberately trying to lose the election? On the other hand, do the Democrats think that the people of this country are ready for a Socialist type society? Remember in a Socialist or Communist society the government is the answer to everything, but we also know that history has taught us that Socialism and Communism has never worked, wherever it was tried.

Once a Socialist government has been set-up, the first thing to go is any reference of God, God is no longer needed in society because government is then the only power allowed. The second thing to go is gun ownership, the people are not allowed to bear arms, simply so the people cannot rise against the Government. We know that the Obama administration is not a big fan of the second amendment. So my question, is this the type of government the Democrats have planned for the people of this country? Is Obama the true radical that we were warned about back in 2007? Is his plan finally coming together?

Back in 2007 I remember reading many articles stating that Obama’s plan was to replace our Capitalist system with a Socialist type system. (Remember he wanted to Transform America and spread the wealth around) Like so many others, I thought it was an interesting read, but said to myself “this is America, that could not happen here.” Well maybe I was wrong, maybe it could happen here.

Did Obama deliberately load up this country with unsustainable debt just so our economy would collapse? Has he worked the past four years building a new infrastructure of government, so when the old government collapses, the new one would be ready to step in? Is there anything in the Democratic Platform that is even a hint of Traditional America, like love of God, country and family? The Democrats say they love their country, but why do they want to change it into an America that would be unrecognizable? Why are Government agencies purchasing large amounts of ammunition?

Look, I don’t know if any of this means anything, it could all be nothing but a coincidence, but it seems a little funny that all the pieces of the puzzle seem to be falling into place. Nevertheless, I have to admit, when I heard the Democrats were taking out all references to God in their platform, a chill ran up my spine. Are the Democrats showing us a preview of what Obama has planned for his second term? Why is he bypassing Congress so many times and passing things by Executive Order? If this is a glimpse of what Obama and the Democrats have in store for our future, count me out.


This is one man’s opinion.



President Obama is NOT a Socialist!

In two speeches last week in Colorado President Obama revealed his true ideology, and it is not Socialism. While defending the automaker bailouts, he demonstrated his vision while calling for similar bailouts for all industries.

In this one speech he confirms what many have long thought, Obama’s philosophy is closer to Mussolini than Marx, one of Fascism or National Socialism rather than Communism or Socialism.

The Affordable Care Act has effectively given him control, not only of the insurance industry, but the health care industry as well. In addition there is a provision in the bill (Sec. 2717, Subsection D, paragraph b,) which gives him control over all of us.

Compare his statement in Colorado with this one. “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.” -Benito Mussolini

And with this one, “State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.” -Benito Mussolini

And this one, “The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State.” -Benito Mussolini

Mussolini also said, “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. […] They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”

A section of National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Barack Obama in December, could give the Federal government legal powers to detain any dissident voices if they are deemed to be enemies of the state.

In 2008, in a campaign speech in Colorado Obama called for a “private army, just as powerful, trained and well funded as the military.”

Today, he is busily de-funding the US military while labor unions are being exempted from stalking laws and other laws pertaining to the use of violence in their cause.

Consider this description of Mussolini’s reign in 1930’s Italy from the Constitutional Rights Foundation, Mussolini and the Rise of Fascism.

During the 1930s, Mussolini organized industry, agriculture, and economic services into state-controlled labor unions and employer associations called “corporations.” Government officials appointed the heads of each union and employer corporation. They negotiated wages and working conditions with each other.

This “third way” corporatism attempted to unify workers and employers by requiring them to set aside their private interests in favor of the best interests of the fascist state. In practice, however, the employers usually benefited more than the workers did.

Police crackdowns on dissent were mild compared to fascism in Hitler’s Germany. But a special court tried anti-fascists, those working against Mussolini’s regime.

Again, if we look at the way General Motors was re-organized, with the labor union in control and a large share of stock owned by the federal government, it parallels Mussolini’s “third way”. Now President Obama wants to re-organize the rest of industry in the same manner by his own admission!

Also notice how President Obama has sought to organize existing labor unions like the UAW, SEIU, and the NEA into a private army behind him while at the same time punishing non-union businesses like Gibson Guitar and right to work states like South Carolina.

While not blatantly anti-semetic, his treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu has been far less than friendly, and his “off mike” comment to Nicolas Sarkozy was telling. More troubling though is the recent DHS report labeling groups who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty,” as possible terrorists.

This administration and it’s support groups spend an inordinate amount of time trying to demonize certain other groups of people based on their political philosophy, religion, and color of their skin. The continuing persecution, though not nearly as ferocious, is akin to the demonization of people of Jewish extraction in 1930’s Germany.
Marx believed that the workers should unite and takeover the means of production, that the fruits of that production would then be shared among the workers according to their needs. Fascism on the other hand, believes that the government, in partnership with corporations, should run the nation, and that the people must live their lives for the greater good of the country, rather than the pursuit of happiness for themselves.

Whatever the guiding philosophy, time and time again the administration has shown an utter disregard for the constitution and the rule of law, preferring to govern by edict rather than the consent of the governed. Without the re-election restraints placed on him in a second term, there is no telling how dictatorial he may become.

Why Obama Could Be a Socialist Subverter

Revelations regarding the fact that the current president Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, which has affiliations with the Democratic Socialists of America, have raised the possibility that he was specifically groomed to be a subversive by his mentors and associates throughout his life and political career.

Many are psychologically invested in maintaining their mythological belief structure about Barack Obama: that he is a political moderate and the right are going mad (probably because he is black); that it is “racist” to call him any negative descriptor, including the term “socialist”… and all manner of ideas inserted in their minds by the complicit mainstream media complex. Such falsely held beliefs betray any understanding of long-standing party conflicts and the historical context of past political debates. It is an utter failure of the education system to teach citizens relevant American civics.

Others cannot believe that conspiracies exist at all. Unhinged speculation about the “truth” about 9/11 (which more than half of Democrats believed) or the undue influence of certain political conferences have tainted the term, making it seem impossible that political and financial elites conspire to undermine our national interest. The polarized political environment also makes it difficult to convert people, even after you hit them with sledge-hammer like facts to chip away the foundations of their worldview.

But the cold, hard “truth” is that after decades of radicalization of the universities, media and courts, we are on a clear trajectory to being bankrupted in the manner of socialist-run Greece. This is an intentional strategy that is in part organized at an international level (through IGOs like the UN and the IMF, which was recently headed by a socialist). Such agenda items as the UN’s Agenda 21 (official website) and the Millennium Challenge (official website) articulate the worldwide organized left’s goals. The degree to which President Obama’s policies coincide with and do not deviate from such agenda items are a proxy measure of his plausible participation in an orchestrated effort to undermine the nation’s sovereignty and to loot and oppress its citizenry.

Conspiracies Exist

Throughout history, conspiracies have taken place that threatened the very life-blood of governments and peoples.  The Catalinarian Conspiracy, taking place in the first century B.C.E., was a very serious plot to overthrow the Roman Republic.  Such a plot prompted the great thinker Cicero to state the following:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared…(42 B.C.E.)

Certainly, one cannot accuse Cicero of being a dotty old fool.  But his statement neither proves or disproves the claim that such a conspiracy exists in the United States. That being said, a prescient mind familiar with neomarxist theory and experience with both the media and academia would be hard-pressed to deny that there is an astonishingly large cohort of intellectuals with no sympathy whatsoever for the American system of Constitutionally limited government.

It should be conceded that a concerted group effort to undermine, destroy, or “fundamentally transform” a legitimately founded government using means of infiltration and deception is by definition a conspiracy, and in this presentation, with the intent to commit high treason.  But what else could one make of the Alinsky doctrine of “boring from within,” or the Gramscian strategy of a “long march” through the institutions of the country, capturing them and using them to move the country in a hard-left direction?

On Proving a Conspiracy

There are numerous conspiracy theories on the Internet regarding all manner of topics. They vary in quality between the provable, the plausible, the unfounded, and the just plain crazy.

What is a conspiracy? The following is a dictionary definition:


  1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
  2. The action of plotting or conspiring

In order to decisively judge something as true or false, hard and undeniable evidence is generally required.  But there is also the circumstantial manner of proving a theory, which requires numerous facts that fit very closely a given pattern, with little if no contradictory evidence presented, and very weak alternative hypotheses.

Conspiracies exist.  Not all conspiracies are true.  Subversion is real.  But not everything one disagrees with ideologically is an example of willful subversion. These are a few necessary disclaimers, lest one believe that the following is a one-sided presentation of the facts.  It is.  That is necessary when one has a theory, regardless of what it is.

President Obama may not think of himself as a communist, narrowly defined.  He may not even have any knowledge of being part of a “conspiracy,” and would indeed laugh at the notion. I find the claim that the president is both open about his aims and forthright in his associations hard to believe, but it is not a necessary part of the argument to belabor what Obama thinks or doesn’t think.  Nothing that follows here entails mind-reading – only a willingness to look into the evidence presented and to debunk it point-by-point, or otherwise to formulate a stronger alternative hypothesis, which is substantiated by more than hearsay.

Not everything presented is immediately falsifiable, which is an important part of sound theory.  But when something is held out as merely “plausible,” as opposed to verifiable, it will be openly admitted as such.

The following is not comprehensive, as it is merely a blog post, and not a full-length, explicitly documented book.

A Sketch of the Communist Connection Argument

Here is what I think is the “terrible truth” about Mr. Obama.

Obama is a symbol and was plausibly conceived as such (if one might believe that Obama Sr. targeted Stanley with ulterior motives, a convincing dynamic) between a drifting progressive white woman of questionable judgment and a known Marxist Kenyan living in a Third World country.  The USSR ran ‘active measures’ all over the world; meaning, its intelligence agencies targeted governments for destabilization.  Involved in this process was a long campaign of cultural infiltration and subversion.  Barack’s father may have been targeted by the KGB for an ‘active measure’ to be run against the United States — either in Kenya (helping him to get to Harvard) or afterwards.

Once Obama was born, his background suggests one of ingrained “rootlessness,” which was marked by shifting parental, cultural, religious, and perhaps even sexual contexts.  This background leads to a narcissistic personality complex, where one may believe he is transcendent over his environment and one where the subject forms very weak personal attachments.  When combined with the Alinsky doctrine of using people as a means to an end, we have a political operator of Obama’s genus [sic].

But let’s back up.  The central causal link between Barack Obama and the USSR’s intelligence agencies would most likely be Frank Marshall Davis.  FMD had the verifiable communist party pedigree to be a KGB contact – this is the smoking gun all American patriots should seek out, first and foremost. President Obama effectively concedes that “Frank” is FMD in his ghost-written book “Dreams.”  Obama’s literary skills do not suggest that he was alone writing his biographies (Weather Underground terrorist and now esteemed English professor William Ayers, who lived in Obama’s neighborhood in Chicago, may have had more than a small hand in crafting them.)

Obama’s lived an extremely charmed life, and apparently with no merit to warrant it.  This is partially a reflection of affirmative action practices, but certainly there is enough to suggest more. How did he pay for Harvard? Clues suggest that he was sponsored by Rashid Khalidi, a Saudi agent, using oil money.  How did he become editor of the Harvard Law Review? He certainly left no paper trail to justify it.

Obama’s political life becomes even weirder and grayer once coming to Chicago.  He was a radical community organizer, often working side-by-side with known communists in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  There is documented evidence of his membership in the DSA-offshoot New Party, which was also communistic and would use fusion tactics in conjunction with Democrat Party affiliation to win elections in Illinois, until the practice was banned by the courts.

The man had serious hardcore left contacts with world communist backgrounds, like Alice Palmer and Valerie Jarrett, the latter’s father Vernon Davis a card-carrying communist who knew FMD.

But the overarching theme is that Obama’s background is akin to what KGB agents called a “legend” – a contrived biography with just enough murkiness and just enough substance to be a fertile ground for psychological warfare, disinformation tricks, conspiracy-mongering, and the like.  Obama’s symbolic stature as a “unifier” leading America to transcend its (racist) past makes any attack on him an attack on hope and change and unity and on and on.  Only a “racist, bigot, homophobe” would do such a thing; ergo, attacking Obama makes someone a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe.  That’s Critical Theory. That’s the Neomarxist strategy.

Most Americans Will Deny The Plausibility of Such a Theory for Emotional Reasons

Furthermore, although the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is a socialist and plausibly a communist, this is a situation that most Americans refuse emotionally to accept, and one will never be able to prove this sufficiently to some in habitualized denial short of Obama admitting it on live television.  Even then, millions would refuse to believe it.  We have been sold a big lie, and as Hitler understood, that is very hard to debunk with reason and evidence.  People want to believe in what Obama’s saying, and he looks so nice, and speaks so well!  They can’t get past the superficial facade and probe into his past. Obama has a phantom background, and the evidence that must be necessarily cherry-picked for signs of his radicalism, such as his provable associations with the America-damning Jeremiah Wright and the literal flamethrower William Ayers, can always be explained away by something – guilt by association, for example.  Well, how many communists, black liberation theologians, and other radicals does a man have to run with before an observer gets the gist that the man is a communist – especially one who admits he chose his friends carefully?

There are other ways of explaining away examples of communist leftist associations in Obama’s radical past, but the problem is, you can’t explain away it all.  What the substantiable evidence indicates is a “pattern of behavior” that matches his known past.  When you have such a strong overlap in current behavior, current associations, past behavior, past associations, and an accumulated record of statements that suggest to you that someone is who he appears to be; that’s what one should adjudge, until contradicting evidence is presented.  I see no reason to believe that Obama has any feeling for America, its traditions, or its Constitution beyond sheer lip service. Nearly everything in his past and in the present points otherwise.

Obama’s willful conduct domestically and in terms of foreign affairs point to the programmatic unraveling of the strictures of the U.S. Constitution.  His concessionary and disadvantageous actions towards China and Russia in particular are very troubling to say the least. We need to begin looking more earnestly for smoking guns of the president’s associations with communists in his past, in his current administration, and with other known fellow-travelers around the world.

Please see the series 1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama for piecemeal documentation of Obama’s socialist and communist links. A previous version under this title was originally posted on my blog RogueGovernment, and was reblogged in light of troubling current events involving the president and his policies.

Adieu France, So Long Stability

French Socialist President Francois Hollande’s newly elected government is planning to raise taxes on big companies while deterring businesses from engaging in layoffs by making that process more costly.

Hoping to nudge companies into investing rather than paying profits to shareholders, the government plans to impose a new 3% tax on dividends. Other plans include raising levies on capital gains, a special tax on banks and on energy companies, as well as imposition of government policies requiring the sale of profitable businesses in lieu of closure.

France’s Socialist government will dictate that it is illegal for a profitable, privately owned business to close its own doors.

So much for having the French people engaged in business activity. This less business-friendly government is going about the business of smothering France’s economy.

The prospects of trying to do business in France’s new economic environment resulted in margins tumbling, cash flow dwindling and orders collapsing. The uncertain outlook has postponed or cancelled investment and hiring.

Medef President Laurence Parisot told a news conference “The first source of financing for companies’ projects comes from private investors. Increasing tax on dividends runs the risk that private investors either invest less or elsewhere. We’ve had many meetings with the staff in ministries to explain what’s happening, but we are becoming deeply distressed. We fear a systematic strangling. Let’s be careful not to transform our country into a super-rigid enclave completely out of touch with the functioning of market economies as found everywhere else.” Parisot said.

Statistical data from the INSEE agency shows that business confidence fell in June to the lowest level since 2009, when France’s economy first showed signs of emerging from the nation’s worst post-war recession.

Hollande was elected last month after pledging to fight unemployment and revive growth. What he and his government are planning is not the way to go about achieving those goals. Attempting to resolve an economic dilemma that nanny state entitlement spending caused by destroying the tax base through imposition of business strangling regulations and taxes, while increasing the amount of spending done on entitlement programs is like trying to get a drunk sober by giving him a case of champagne. It’s going to have an effect opposite to the one desired. It is only going to make matters worse.

The way to balance a government budget is to stimulate private sector economic growth. That is what creates the tax base required to fund the government. Making it more difficult and more expensive to conduct business in the private sector is counter-productive to balancing any government budget.

By following economic policies similar to those Hollande plans for France, the United States is currently experiencing 1.8% economic growth. At this same point in President Ronald Reagan’s first term in office, his economic policies had stimulated the private sector U.S. economy to a 7.2% growth rate.

Can you say duh?

Both America and France could learn a thing or two from the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. In the case of the current White House occupant, that does not include hollow, unfounded, meaningless claims that you are much like President Reagan. It makes no difference whether those claims are made by you or your eager, obedient lapdogs in the institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear machine, referred to by your dumbed down, ill informed “progressive” congregation as the mainstream media.

France has the second biggest economy in the European Union. If this is the best the French can come up with, it is time to bid adieu to France and to European Union stability.


Chavez Lovefest & the Medal of Honor

Never missing an opportunity to praise socialists, President Obama awarded Honorary Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America Dolores Huerta with the Medal of Freedom, traditionally the highest civilian honor bestowed upon American citizens.

Huerta, who works under the direction of Labor Secretary (and open borders advocate) Hilda Solis, has spent a lifetime praising socialists and communists like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. She pals around with other socialists and communists like Jodie Evans of Code Pink, Van Jones and terrorist Bill Ayers.

Ayers is significant in the love affair with Hugo Chavez in many ways.  For one, Ayers spoke at the World Economic Forum in Caracas in 2006 and praised Chavez for the Bolivarian revolution claiming that Venezuela was leading the world to “fundamental change” in education. Remember, it was in Bill Ayers’ living room that Barack Obama got his political start.

New Medal of Freedom recipient Dolores Heurta seems to have quite the affinity for President Chavez as seen in a video here at the Blaze.com.

Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist well on his way to communism, has been writing the playbook for the Obama administration by expropriating private business and industries like food and energy production.  Shortly after Chavez forced privately owned Minneapolis-based Cargill to turn over its rice mill to the Venezuelan government, GM  and Chrysler fell victim to the same fate in America.  Chavez has also taken control of other private businesses like Hilton Hotels, steel production and the banking industry.

Huerta has made a lifelong career of forcing union demands on American companies and taxpayers.  She is co-founder of the United Farm Workers’ Union, has worked with AFL-CIO and has led protests, walkouts and boycotts on American industries.

Hugo Chavez must be proud to know her.  In 2009, Chavez took a page out of Huerta’s playbook and told oil industry workers in Venezuela that if they refuse to join the state-run unions they would be fired from their jobs.

It seems socialists all have the same agenda, control everything and tell the people it’s for their own good.  Now that’s freedom for ya.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! www.twitter.com/erinhaust

Millionaire Socialists and the Morons Who Love Them

Nothing is as moronic about the modern left as its espousing of socialist values, like wealth redistribution and state-determined equality of outcomes, and its simultaneous backing of politicians and leftist celebrities who defy every one of those purported values. The cognitive dissonance it takes to support a left-wing party headed by wealthy oligarchs is truly breathtaking. Such radical fat cats in the main use the state as a way to suppress  competition, flaunt the radical environmentalist claptrap through carbon-belching air and motorcade travel, and even crush the market system that got them to their lofty positions.

Much ink could be spilled about the ideological inadequacy of a political movement whose advocates preach a utopian society of perfect equality, yet dismiss their own political leaders as examples of how the system would work in practice. Instead, a short list of prominent socialist and left-wing politicians and their personal fortunes will be provided.

Ladies and gentlement, here are your socialist one-percenters.

  1. Francois Hollande, the new socialist president of France, is a great example of a man who talks the talk, but in no wise walks the walk. As Bloomberg aptly put it, “French President-elect Francois Hollande, who portrayed himself as a ‘normal man’ during the election campaign, owns properties worth… $1.51 million, according to a government publication.” Not too shabby for a man who is supposed to be ‘down for the little people.
  2. Dominic Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the IMF, recently embroiled in a sexual assault case that was dismissed. Also a member of the French Socialist Party, he is estimated to be worth $10 million. French socialists recently denounced DSK as a way of getting some ideological distance from the creep. Nice try, shysters.
  3. Hugo Chavez, unofficial dictator-for-life in socialist Venezuela. Born in a mud hut, he rose to tyrannical control over the country, and is now worth an estimated $1 billion dollars. Chavez claims to have recovered from cancer treatment provided in Cuba, and will “run” again for tinpot dictator over the country. He would have been constitutionally forbidden to do so, but he supposedly won a referendum in 2009 to ban term limits. Because, you know, he’s for democracy and stuff.
  4. Fidel Castro, communist leader of Cuba, is worth a cool $900 million, according to a Forbes estimate. After ruling Cuba with an iron fist from 1961 until 2011, he finally turned power over to his brother Raul Castro. (Because communists have evolved past all that nepotism business.) In any event, while the Cuban communist brothers lived high off the hog, the majority of Cubans struggled to put food on the table. Is that a lifestyle we Americans are supposed to envy?  While it is debatable whether or not Fidel Castro is dead, it’s not debatable that communism is a dead ideology, except in the minds of delusional fools.
  5. Daniel Ortega is the new socialist leader on the Latin American block, and is said to be worth at least $1 million. Bankrolled by fellow lefty Hugo Chavez, this budding Nicaraguan despot is sure to be worth more than this low-ball estimate.  Extensive real estate holdings attained through state expropriation give this man a healthy boost in the wealth category. Although he sounds like he could be the heir to a taco empire, he got his money the old-fashioned socialist way — by stealing it.
  6. Julia Gillard is the current prime minister of Australia. Notorious for posing as an environmentalist moderate during her election, and then pivoting to a hardline “green” stance, she is currently worth $2 million. Gillard’s predecessor and mentor as Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has been described as the “Richie Rich” of prime ministers, and is himself estimated to be worth around $156 million. There is also solid evidence that a Gillard staffer engineered a mini-race riot on Australia Day, showing the left’s shared penchant for scumbaggery transcends national borders.
  7. Paul Martin is a former prime minister of Canada. Although he attained a fortune of $225 million as CEO of CSL Group, among other things, he felt compelled to co-author the Liberal Party platform of “Creating Opportunity,” colloquially known as the “Red Book.”  Since  1993, when the Liberal Party won a landslide, the Canadian economy is yet to break free of the seven percent to nine percent unemployment range.
  8. Vladimir Putin is the authoritarian head of Russia, an ex-KGB colonel who has maintained many socialist policies from the USSR days, as both president and prime minister. Putin has been slow to privatize the numerous industries of the Soviet era, and has allowed little economic freedom, bullying any industry titans unless the predatory controllers of those firms pay obeisance to the Kremlin. Worth about $40 billion.
  9. Al Gore was vice president under Clinton and ‘almost the next president of the United States.’ A global warmist by occupation, he has called for increasingly tight controls over the market economy. An “unregulated” market is supposedly going to lead to a manmade climate change apocalypse, that is, unless we fork over — $76 trillion dollars. As a man who jet sets around the planet preaching the green gospel, while racking up a hefty utilities bill in his numerous mansions (including ocean front property), he is worth about $100 million.
  10. Barack Obama is the historic first black president of the United States. A man who was backed big time by Wall Street in his 2008 campaign and yet claimed that the Occupy Wall Street kids were the reason he ran for office, he has constantly demagogued the class warfare argument for wealth redistribution. Although he has constantly framed America as a country that is heartless and oppresses minorities, he is a walking parody of that insipid line of attack. Since writing a couple of biographies, sold mainly in the capitalist market (though it’s questionable if any read them), he is now worth about $10.5 million.

Not only millionaire politicians, but fabulously wealthy left-wing celebrities like Michael Moore and Jane Fonda spout off radical talking points about wealth redistribution, yet pursue personal fortunes in the capitalist system. Billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffett, among others, talk up redistributionist policies, but do not “pay their fair share.” That’s beyond the scope of this article and could be the subject of a forthcoming post.

This is just a taste of left-wing hypocrisy, which actually disproves their entire ideology in practice. One is loathe to find a single, solitary example of a socialist who has attained power in a country and hasn’t made himself materially better off than his fellow comrades.

It should be said to radicals that even if the capitalist system were to be destroyed, as history has borne out, socialist economic control would lead to even worse material and wealth disparity. It’s not money that causes us to be greedy, but that people are naturally competitive and many people have a lust for life.  And it’s not that people have more or less money that is the issue, but whether wealth is attained honestly, and whether people have an opportunity to better their own lives.

For something completely different, try the monoblog audio version.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker, Misfit Politics, and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk shows at OTNN.

Socialist Circle of Influence

As if we needed more evidence that President Obama’s young adulthood was riddled with radical influence, another video has surfaced courtesy of Breitbart.com that depicts then Harvard Law student Barry Obama praising and embracing Professor Derrick Bell.

In the days following the release of the video the blogosphere erupted with background checks, additional video and reaction to Professor Bell’s lifelong work, Critical Race Theory.

While media pundits and political junkies pour over what CRT is and how it affects race relations in America, one young man took a slightly different reactionary approach.

Justen Charters created this video after stumbling upon signifcant evidence tying Obama’s beloved professor and mentor, Derrick Bell, to the president’s long list of criminals, socialists and anti-Christian relationships from his past AND present.

Professor Bell seems to have been intimately connected with many of the same usual suspects in the progressive and socialist movements.

As the video points out, Professor Bell was a frequent sponsor of the socialist publication New Politics, as was cofounder of the Cloward and Piven strategy for creating national socialism in America, Francis Fox Piven. New Politics was founded by members of the Independent Socialist League.

** A photograph of Francis Fox Piven standing behind President Bill Clinton at a Bill Signing Ceremony can be seen here: American Thinker

Professor Bell’s connections don’t end in merely sponsoring a socialist publication. He was also co-contributor to the book What Brown Vs. the Board of Education Should Have Said with current Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein. Sunstein’s more notable publication is Nudge, which argues that the government knows best and has a responsibility to “nudge” citizens into making good choices through laws and regulation. Bell spent a large portion of his career rendering opinion regarding Brown v Education which ended in a unanimous Supreme Court decision prohibiting segregation in schools.

Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein

Professor Bell is quoted as saying he lived his life to “harass white people.” Putting his words to action, he co-contributed to many books that supported his theory of “permanent racism,” which purports that racism is inherent in white people and will never be eradicated. One such publication is called Race, Gender and Sexuality, which was primarily authored by Black Panther Party for Self Defense co-founder Huey P. Newton. See images of Newton here: Marxists.org

The revelations in this short video outline the radical and socialist traits of Professor Bell. More importantly, it contributes to growing evidence that this pattern of traits were not only appealing to President Obama in his early adulthood, but that he still carries similar beliefs with him today.

A Libertarian’s Battle Cry on Super Tuesday

If you are a Libertarian, a Constitutional Republican, or a freedom-lover of any sort, your battle cry on Super Tuesday should be “Anyone but Santo.” The Santo Surge is a threat to personal liberty and to those who believe fervently in the separation of church and state. Not only has Rick Santorum (a notorious earmarker) defended his big government spending habits, these days, he can frequently be found preaching his generations-old positions on gender and sexuality. Such positions should offend any modern-day advocate of less government intrusion in our personal lives.

True, morality is important, and many of us like the idea of our nation’s leader being a religious or spiritual person. But we who prefer self-reliance don’t want government making personal decisions for us. We believe politicians have no place in our bedrooms, in our children’s lunchboxes, or in our doctors’ offices. So long as our decisions aren’t jeopardizing another person’s life, liberty or personal property, the decisions should be left to us, the individuals, and the consequences of those decisions between us and our God.

Santorum has, in recent weeks, proven that his presidency would be his platform. Instead of being called to lead us, he seems to think he’s been called to “save” us – and I don’t mean “save” in the sense of rescuing our economy from the Socialist clutches of Obama. I mean that he seems to want to ensure that we all make “right” decisions in our personal lives so that we can all go to heaven. On paper, this is not so different from Obama, who also wants us to make the “right” decisions, and when we don’t make the decisions he agrees with, he wants to make them for us.

Santorum’s sanctimonious speeches are divisive, when what conservatives need most is to be united. He seems to be on a personal mission to reverse the decades of progress that women and homosexuals have enjoyed, to return women to the kitchens and gays to the closets. How can this sort of leadership possibly be good for our country? How does it even remotely address the real issues we are facing: outrageous jobless numbers, high gas prices, illegal immigration, a crippling deficit, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran?

The Santorum message is a distraction to the mission, which is to get Obama out of the Oval Office as swiftly and decisively as possible. Americans must see a clear rejection of Socialist and Marxist principles. Because of his presence in the race, we are talking about contraception (good grief, wasn’t this decided in the 1950s?) instead of energy independence and meaningful tax reform.

On Super Tuesday, even if one candidate enjoys a massive lead in your state, vote for anyone but Santorum. Make him fight for delegates, and don’t buy the “social conservative” message he’s selling. Voters won’t be mobilized by a discussion on birth control, so don’t fall into the trap the MSM is trying to set. They want Santo to surge, for him to be the focus, because the Democrats know he is NO REAL THREAT to President Obama in a general election.

So stand up against Santorum’s theocratic ideology, because trading one extreme for the other is never a good thing for freedom.