Yes-We-Can Internet Op Morphs Into Orwellian Thought-Control

What was accomplished by Team Obama in last fall's presidential campaign regarding the Internet has been widely considered to be historic- changing the way that political campaigns are organized, strategized,  financed, and implemented.   


Julius Genachowski -who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Obama- is the high-tech entrepreneur behind the use of  technology in the presidential campaign. He is the one that convinced Obama that the Web had powerful implications for his ideas about "empowerment" and connecting people. 

But Obama's 2008 campaign has never ended- it's now employed to to push-through massive spending programs and other initiatives, as well as keep real (and perceived) enemies back-on-their-heels.   Barack is still out there on the stump, on YouTube, in tightly scripted-and-'Prompted pressers... with continuing grassroots door-to-door operations and TV ads funded by the DNC. Of course, Team Obama web-based efforts continue as a high priority... and this seems to include a comprehensive and organized effort to control political discourse on the Internet-with a disciplined message and Obamamania cheerleading, coupled with Alinsky-style attacks and diversions when useful.  

According to Politico, "Obama for America, the fundraising juggernaut that powered Obama's ascent to the presidency, spent nearly $9.5 million in the first three months of this year", including on telemarketing and print and online advertising, event staging, money for the DNC, the Obama political group Organizing for America, and the Obama family. The report also shows that Obama for America contributed $4 million to the DNC.  Organizing for America is funded by the DNC... and operates Obama's continuing effort on the web.

Vladimir Lenin had said of the cutting-edge media of his day: "Of all the arts, for us (communists), the cinema is most important."  The Bolshevik was clearly not referring to artistic or cultural value of the film industry; rather, cinema's usefulness as a medium for propaganda and tool of agitation.  


Today's equivalent -the Internet- is more far-reaching, wide-ranging, powerful, and effective than Vlad ever dreamed of.  But it's also harder to control-  thus the unprecedented efforts we are seeing from Team Obama to both utilize and contain it.

And the Democrats appear to have all avenues covered:  far-left to moderate, as well as more innocuous Hope-n-Changey blogs supporting the President; systematic trolling on blogs' comments sections; manipulating political message boards; mass-rating of news items on aggregators such as Digg, etc.  Team Obama also installed tracking-cookies on the computers of those visiting the Obama '08 website to track their online history for use in a DNC data base.

And anyone reading message boards these days -such as Politico, Topix, or Yahoo!- can see what appears to be organized Obama-ites jumping on fresh conversation threads thoroughly and promptly, gaming the ratings-system with multiple IDs (I once had a message on Yahoo! rated over 100 times- curiously, with zero written responses)- as well as attempting any other imaginable manipulation perceived to be to their propaganda advantage.  Sometimes, the goal seems simply to clog the board with so many new posts and topics as to render conservative messages unreadable.

There are taunting statements and personal attacks on what they call the "cons"- burying their posts in gobbledygook.  Steer the topic.  Change the subject.  Deflect and divert. And they're at it all day long- in a comprehensive and systematic way.  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there are organized trolls attempting to hijack and control all internet debate, all to maintain momentum for The One as he rams-through an ultra-liberal agenda while also focused on 2010... and 2012.

Using ID's as "Little Bam" and "USA_4_Obama", you see them on there spinning every reality like the Tasmanian Devil...  i.e.- the New Deal was just great (but perhaps not big enough), everybody loves Barack, all his opponents are retrograde racist/anti-progressives in the "Party of No"... or are somehow allied with the evil and greedy "rich".  

They interestingly stick tightly to DNC talking-points ala JournoList regarding Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, anything to trash Palin, Jindal... even shameful slander of Ronald Reagan's legacy, all in an obvious effort to distort the truth and destroy any potential GOP rallying-points for 2010/2012.  They seem to be working off the same list of accusations, targets, and historical revisionism as the White House and their media allies- as they display precious little variance that would indicate free-thinking, good faith discourse.   

And it's not difficult to see why the Democrats might prefer to banter playfully about made-up GOP "scandals" and irrelevancies like Meghan McCain's latest drivel than debate Obama's ongoing destruction of the country.  When most of his domestic and foreign policies are a carbon copy of serial-failure Jimmy Carter's, and there's no other historical prededent to suggest potential for success -and when today's Republicans demand proven solutions- might as well just attack them personally, or employ some diversion, eh? 

Breitbart.com actually polices nonpartisan newswire stories for such obviously coordinated attacks. According to Andrew Breitbart "Much of Mr. Obama’s vaunted online strategy involved utilizing “Internet trolls” to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion.  In the real world, that’s called “vandalism.” But in a political movement that embraces “graffiti” as avant-garde art , that’s business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people’s property in pursuit of electoral victory."  Other right-leaning sites such as Instapundit and Nadtional Review Online even refuse to allow comments, so as to not provide a platform for the mischievious activist left. 

Sadly, similar efforts from the Democrats have been with us for some time, and in various forms. During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a then-new leftist group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans. They then feigned revulsion and said they "would never vote for the GOP again if the case against Bill Clinton was pursued."  The same MoveOn.org is, of course, today in the vanguard of the web's leftist-activists.

"This is nothing more than the Internet version of Soviet disinformation," Human Events editor Jed Babbin told Brietbart. "MoveOn.org and the little boys from Lord of the Flies who run Media Matters want to make it appear that there's huge dissension within conservative ranks on issues on which we're most united."  

Breitbart continued:  "The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites benefit from the right's belief that there are rules and decorum in political debate and civic engagement. Of course, every now and then, a curious right-winger will go in and engage in discussion at a left-wing site, but rarely under purely disingenuous and mass coordinated means."

I myself have received numerous hostile messages that ring similar and hollow on this blog, the Reaganite Republican Resistance- and I moderate them for that reason:  it's not the specious taunting, but there's a transparent focus and agenda.  This includes repeated messages by the same two or three of the same people attacking the GOP, Reagan, or myself; kindly reminding me that "Ronnie is dead, and so are his ideas"; "the GOP has no leader", I'm a "racist" and a "coward" not to post their messages;  then telling me what mental-problems I have (they obviously operate under the directive that no conservative message should go unchallenged- so do what it takes).  Note that one of Alisky's most valued techniques is "ridicule" to "provoke" the "target" into responding.

Creatively, one of these online charlatans has now taken to informing me that he has "Republican friends who complained that I wouldn't publish their messages"- which is, naturally, sheer fiction- I publish anything that doesn't reek of troll.  There have also been a dozen dubious "I'm a Republican", but shouldn't we all "just get along" and "give Obama a chance"- with almost identical scripts... while the real Obama we're supposed to try and get-along-with charges an ultra-liberal multi-trillion-dollar spending orgy to your great-grandkids' Visa-card.   Things that make you go hmmm.

Young and net-savvy Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has admitted that there is such a web-based effort in support of Obama... he runs it... and it's funded by the DNC:

"David Plouffe, who ran Obama's campaign, now runs "Organizing for America" out of the Democratic National Committee. It uses the same Web-based tactics that won the presidency to mobilize public opinion behind Obama's initiatives." 

The Yes-We-Can wolfpacks on the blogs and message boards may be paid by this program, but who knows-  Plouffe is notoriously stingy with campaign funds.  Regardless, there is surely a  residual supply of enthusiastic volunteers to staff any effort he has organized to flood the net.  Mr. Plouffe operates out of the DNC's offices-- same place the anti-Limbaugh ads came from (some even is Spanish) to dovetail with attacks from Obama, Emanuel, and their media allies.  The DNC is basically evolving into a propaganda ministry for Obama- now with Plouffe bringing ACORN-style community-organizing to the web to support Obama's agenda. 

But employing such a manipulation on blogs and message-boards serepticiously is really not clever, slick, or anything to be proud of... rather, it's underhanded, cowardly, and ethically dubious. If Obama's wisdom and moral supremacy are so self-evident, then why such fear of an open discussion of the issues? 

It's all pretty anti-democratic... un-American... and the whole thing stinks like trash-truck juice: an appalling mix of internet-savvy trickery and borderline fraud, Chicago-Machine thuggery, with a little ITAR-Tass mixed-in.  Such efforts to control public discourse are far more totalitarian-propagandist Stalin-Goebbels-Castro than the fair-play democracy of Washington-Jefferson-Lincoln.  The development and implementation of such tactics by Team Obama should be disturbing to anyone who values the good-faith discourse traditional in our country. 

President Obama is apparently not satisfied with just purporting false intentions and misleading, vague "plans" -like that he intends to halve the deficit while simultaneously spending like a billion drunken sailors-  he has also felt the need to fund a propaganda campaign to drill what he wants (and needs) you to believe into your head... and while neutralizing any opposing voices. But the recent TEA parties seems to have stuck a nerve with the President and his sycophants... they showed that many of the less-smitten amongst us are fast becoming wise to this habitually-dishonest closet socialist. 

Now we are told that pending legislation before the US Congress would allow Obama the power to shut down the entire Internet whenever he deems appropriate- talk about the wolf guarding the henhouse.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation "The group (EFF) is particularly worried about the Commander-in-Chief becoming Commander-of-the-Web. It says the bill gives the president “unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds.” The bill would permit the White House to declare a "cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any network the president declares "critical." 

And it's uber-partisan and serial-opportunist Rahm Emanuel that will have the President's ear regarding just what constitutes such an emergency. After the disturbing, politically-motivated DHS report on "right-wing extremists" -in addition to relentless Team Obama online shenanigans- it's pretty difficult to make the case for why we should trust the Machiavellian Obama Administration with the most powerful communication medium that's the world's ever seen- one that ruthless revolutionary and pioneering-propagandist Lenin surely would have stood before in awe... and envy.

Biden Running Interference for the Great Socialist Roll-Out of 2009

Some have recently taken solace and a sense of relief in the seemingly-moderate appointments Barack Obama has made to his cabinet, such as Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton... especially after hearing rhetoric like "we're going to spread the wealth around" from him during the presidential campaign.

Some others though, such as syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, see it differently. In his recent column, "The Real Obama", he states: "...Obama's own beliefs remain largely opaque, his appointments have led to the conclusion that he intends to govern from the center." Of the sensible appointments in his senior economic team, Krauthammer says "their principal task is to stabilize the financial system, a highly pragmatic task in which Obama has no particular ideological stake.... As in foreign policy, Obama wants experts and veterans to manage and pacify universes in which he has little experience and less personal commitment. Their job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that Obama can address his real ambition: to effect a domestic transformation as grand and ambitious as Franklin Roosevelt's."

He goes-on to say that "deepening recession creates the opportunity for federal intervention and government experimentation on a scale unseen since The New Deal."

Additionally, "Henry Paulson's invention of the number $700 billion forever altered our perception of imaginable government expenditure. Twenty billion more for Citigroup? Lunch money.... And public opinion, demanding action, will buy any stimulus package of any size. The result: undreamed-of amounts of money at Obama's disposal.

Obama was quite serious when he said he was going to change the world. And now he has a national crisis, a personal mandate, a pliant Congress, a desperate public -- and, at his disposal, the greatest pot of money in galactic history."

Krauthammer finishes "Don't be fooled by Bob Gates staying on. Obama didn't get elected to manage Afghanistan. He intends to transform America. And he has the money, the mandate and the moxie to go for it. "

When Joe Biden was quoted as saying on Friday that the US economy is in danger of "really tanking", the first thought one has is "hasn't it ever occurred to this oaf that morale and confidence are vital for our markets and military?" Statements like "Obama's going to be tested" by our enemies, and that the economy might "tank" accomplishes what, exactly? This is the equivalent of a coach telling his team "We're probably going to get killed out there today."

He's no Nute Rockne, this Biden. But Obama has treated him like a crazy-aunt-in-the-attic for some time now, not allowing Joe out in public without being chained to a TelePrompter. Therefore, one must consider that this alarmist remark has an intentional purpose... in-concert with more benign, yet similar statements made by the President-elect himself recently.

As reckless as it appears? From famously-disciplined Team Obama, probably not- and the purpose of Biden's comment is to lower expectations and buy time, heap more blame for the economic crisis on the GOP, but most importantly, re-enforce a sense of need in the public to prepare them for the Great Socialist Roll-Out... spending $1 trillion in various big-government programs. In this way, Biden's legendary lack of constraint is useful... as if sensible minds object to such irresponsible fear-mongering, Obama's apologists can dismiss it as "oh, that's just ol' Joe- you know how he is".

Biden and Obama are now using the canned lines "everyone I've talked to" and "every major economist says" that we need a huge spending program for "economic stimulus". Who exactly are they talking to? Any factual support? This doesn't even vaguely resemble a valid argument... and apparently they don't speak with adherents of Milton Freidman or Art Laffer. Shouldn't the public and US Congress ask to first see at least one historical precedent where this big-spending has worked, before we jump into this $1 trillion pit?

Obama's misguided plans go against all proven formulae, largely ignoring the true engines of our economy (entrepreneurs and small business) in-favor of a huge, inefficient, and corrupt Federal spending spree... just like the policies that lengthened The Depression by 7+ yrs.

The massive outlays of The New Deal that Obama so proudly emulates were, in-fact, a colossal economic failure. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt never achieved an unemployment level under 14%... and averaged 17% over his presidency.

Some conservatives have taken to noting that history has proven The New Deal a mistake. But there was never any need to wait for historical evidence... as FDR's own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau stated in 1939:

"We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is all in stark contrast to the proven Reagan Recovery of the 1980s, which brought us back from almost 11% unemployment (50% worse than today), plus double-digit inflation and interest rates that were inherited from the incompetent Carter Administration. Ronald Reagan accomplished this with an adherence to the Chicago School philosophy- with spending cuts, tax cuts, in addition to deregulation and incentives for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

In his two terms, Reagan created over 20M jobs...growing the country's GDP by almost 30% in the process. Those kind of results makes one wonder why Obama's trillion-dollar spending plan would impress anybody, even with his recent increase from the previously pledged 2.5M new and "saved" jobs (whatever those are) to the new goal of +3M... a paltry figure 17M jobs shy of Reagan's towering accomplishment.

And Obama's proposal is not a spend-money program, because we don't have it.... it's a print-money program, with all the associated evils. What happened to the lessons of the last 20 yrs regarding keeping a lid on inflation as a priority?

With today's 7% unemployment, low inflation, and interest rates approximating zero, but an already massive Federal deficit... we need to spend another trillion dollars? Why? All we are being told is that a "big mess" has been created, and that "something has to be done" to avert an even greater catastrophe. Assuming all that is true, shouldn't Americans demand something that has been proven to work, instead of the discredited approach of throwing money at the problem?

Why not a tax cut, instead... and let American businesses create the jobs they've repeatedly demonstrated the ability to produce? Somehow, the irony is lost on Obama that unemployed Silicon Valley engineers should be delighted to get to pour cement for "patriotic" construction projects... instead of reviving businesses through lower taxes that would leverage their skills a little more effectively.

To quote Reagan:

"Entrepreneurs and small businesses are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States."

What a shame then, that Obama is on the verge of implementing an economic "stimulus" package that is actually little more than the mother-of-all-pork-barrel-spending... going against every element of Reagan's proven approach. Obama hasn't the slightest clue how a entrepreneurial market economy functions... and he doesn't want to, because he detests it. He is not even attempting to pursue the best, proven methods to economic recovery, either. For him the crisis is a huge opportunity, seen in purely philosophical terms... and it is the philosophy of a man with the most left-wing voting record in the US Senate. Obama is using this once-in-a-lifetime chance to socialize the country and send money to nefarious supporters, while printing money to cover it all, and crashing the dollar. Then he'll blame it all on Bush, and crank-up the taxes to eye-watering Swedish levels to dig out of the hole.


And who will suffer the brunt of these destructive tax increases? On the rare occasion someone in the press corps actually asks Obama how all this is going to be paid for, he answers as vaguely as possible, as is his m.o. .... while gesturing towards the standard socialist class enemies of "the rich" (who he earlier said where "selfish" and unpatriotic if they didn't support paying more taxes) and "big business", who are more easily painted as villains in the midst of our economic crisis.

It should come as no surprise that Reagan had quite a different take on taxing the job-creating "rich" and America's businesses, both large and small:

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

Business doesn't pay taxes... Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business... If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business."

And the Blagojevich case certainly focuses the mind on Obama's promised big government programs- which have always been likely to encourage corruption. His plans to flood state and local governments with cash will surely empower corrupt politicians, political donors, organized crime, and union bosses. These projects are to be approached with additional caution after what was heard in Blagojevich's words on the FBI tapes- demanding $1M in campaign "donations" from an unnamed cement company who won the contract for the "green lanes" and other improvements to the Illinois Turnpike. This incident clearly demonstrates the skill with which Democrats wrap spending that financially benefits their political supporters in an aura of social/environmental responsibility and entitlement... as both Obama and Blago have been doing for years.

We should also examine carefully Obama's own previous, similar programs in Illinois- where he helped provide subsidies for (convicted felon and Obama fundraiser) Tony Rezko to build and maintain "affordable housing" in Obama’s district. In the event, much of the resulting housing was scandalous, uninhabitable due to substandard work. People froze in the winter, plumbing leaks, and a 3 year old boy was crushed to death last summer by shoddy construction. While Rezko couldn't find the money to get the heat on, he was still making regular political contributions to Obama, though... and getting wealthy in the process.

Now, nationwide, the hogs are lining-up, drooling, at the trough. Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R) wrote a recent column for TheHill.com which highlights some disturbing information about Obama's economic stimulus plan. The plans have special interest groups in a state of euphoria, like they hit the Lotto.

Rep. Bachman, like many conservatives, worries where the money will go: "You’ve got to wonder if the infrastructure investments that Obama is going to include in his package might come from the list of 11,391 projects that the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently submitted to Congress. The list includes things like a $4.8 million polar bear exhibit at the Providence, RI zoo and a $1.5 million water ride in Miami, FL."

And according to a recent CNN article, other abuses of taxpayer dollars found within the report include: “a proposed $20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, NC; $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, AS, airport; $20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo; and a $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, OH.” According the CNN story, the 800-plus page Mayor's document is titled "Main Street Economic Recovery: 'Ready To Go' Jobs and Infrastructure Projects." The requests represent what these mayors and Obama perceive as stimulating the economy and growing jobs through infrastructure rebuilding and maintenance.

This graft-embedded socialist fantasy of Obama's needs to be stopped dead in its tracks... it's as simple as that. We are now saddled with a disingenuous and misguided President-elect that seems bound and determined to lead this country over the abyss, wrecking the structure of our economy in a permanent fashion.

It's about time Americans and the US Congress start asking some real hard questions about Obama's reckless planned spending spree... which is wasteful, inefficient, and nothing less than an assault upon the framework of America's entrepreneurial, free-market capitalist system.

Of Political Courage, & The Company You Keep

Ronald Reagan's views regarding the USSR, communism, and the then emerging Cold War were initially formed by his experiences in the Hollywood labor strike of 1946.

According to author Peter Schweizer's (Reagan's War) research of Soviet archives, strike leader Herb Sorrell was being funded by the Communist Party... and received operational help from Soviet agents. Sorrell was head of the Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), and the goal was nothing less that control of the Hollywood film industry. He had said at the onset of the of the strike "There may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over"- and had brought in crews of goons, just in case things got rough as he was predicting... which of course, they did.

The Screen Actors' Guild voted on whether to join-in, and a majority decided not to honor the strike. Reagan's employer, Warner Brothers Studio, was determined to keep up to production schedule, but advised actors crossing the picket line to sneak-onto the lot through a drainage pipe. Reagan saw that as being intimidated by an unjust cause, and one with underhanded methods. His response to this advice from WB security was "if I'm going to cross the picket line, I'm going to cross the picket line"- and he did just that. He soon emerged as a leader of the anti-strike, anti-communist movement in Hollywood.

It wasn't long before Reagan received a phone call in which he was told that if he continued to oppose the CSU strike, he would never be able to work in films again... as a crew would find him and disfigure his face with acid. He soon obtained a gun for the protection of himself and his family, which he kept handy in a holster each day, and placed on his nightstand every night. Communist sympathizers in Hollywood denounced him as a "fraud", a "stooge", and a "fascist"... even old friends turned on him. His wife Jane Wyman blamed Reagan's new political mission and the environment of fear created by his ruthless new enemies for their divorce.

But, when all was said and done, the strike had collapsed- and Reagan's leadership and courage had impressed even his most bitter opponents. In 1947 several actors, writers, and directors testified before the Un-American Activities Committee of the US Congress on communist influence in Hollywood. Both the Congress and press were extremely impressed with Reagan's poise and intelligence in testimony, and it was clear he had done his homework.


Later, in 1951, in front of the same committee, actor Sterling Hayden testified that the 1946 Hollywood strike had failed because the CSU had run into Reagan, who he described as a "one-man battalion".

His brave, and often lonely fight against Communism became, and was to remain for 40 years, highly personal. When others were seeking an accommodation with the Soviet Union, from the 1950's on-through the Carter Administration, Reagan's belief in the American capitalist system told him that if the USSR was forced to compete in a real all-out arms race with the US, their weaker economic system simply "couldn't keep up". Few agreed with this at the time, and it was actually widely ridiculed. However, this truly insightful viewpoint was 100% validated when he was President in the 1980's.

The his hard-line strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union earned him criticism from all quarters of the press and academia as a "warmonger", and a trigger-happy, "self-assured bumpkin" with an overly simplistic world view, among other things. While most feared what they saw as invincible Soviet power, Reagan said that "the Russians aren't ten-feet-tall" and spoke of inherent weaknesses in the communist system that few others saw. This was a difficult position to take, but Reagan always displayed true, visionary leadership.

He also said while campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964, regarding appeasement to avoid war, that: "there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace... and you can have it in the next second: surrender!". Such unwavering views were often unappealing to a large chunk of the electorate... but the man was sincere in his convictions above all else, and had no taste for political opportunism. Reagan's KGB file defined him with grudging respect as a "convicted anti-communist" and a "firm and unbending politician, for whom words and deeds are one in the same."

Even once elected President in 1980, his military buildup and confrontational approach with the USSR were unpopular. With both double-digit inflation and unemployment inherited from the Carter administration, his own cabinet in 1981 was highly divided on the issue of increased military spending and new weapons systems... but President Reagan held firm with plans to confront both militarily and economically in a concerted manner what he famously dubbed the "Evil Empire". When others called the Warsaw-Pact nations of eastern Europe "Soviet satellites", he more accurately referred to them as "captive" states.

Reagan's foreign opponents felt threatened by his influence long before he became President. KGB agents stationed in the US were told in the 1970's that someday, they may be called upon to "get rid of Reagan". There was also a stillborn mission by Cuban agents to nip this problem in the bud in the 1960's... and assassinate him. There were three known attempts on Ronald Reagan's life before deranged lunatic John Hinckley shot him in 1981.

As California Governor in the late 1960's, Reagan was well-known for his outspoken views on topics ranging from campus radicalism to Cuba and the Soviet Union. He became the number one opponent of Berkeley radicals, whom he didn't hesitate to call "brats" and "freaks" at press conferences and in his speeches. In 1967, Secret Service agents fired upon two men lighting gasoline bombs next to the Governor's mansion. Reagan's brave stands soon earned him a spot on the hit-list of the Weather Underground... the group even kept a bullet with Reagan's name on it at their headquarters. These radicals were planning an armed, Marxist overthrow of the US Government, and they had contacts with the intelligence services of countries such as Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and North Vietnam. They had also collaborated with a Cuban agent on a plot (broken up by the FBI) to assassinate Reagan.

And where does Barrack Hussein Obama fit into this story of valour, honor, and principle?

Unlike Reagan's brave political stands, which had earned him at best lost friends and public condemnation (and at worst a divorce and death threats)- Mr Obama has a record of consistently adopting pragmatic, self-serving platforms that get him the power and positions that serve his aspirations... first and foremost. This of course includes support of, and promotion by, the Chicago Democratic machine- one of the most corrupt in the country, with whom he certainly made no waves... just "get along to get ahead".

.

And there was no shame in seeking the advice and support of powerful, yet controversial figures in Chicago politics to aid his career, and perhaps get some "street cred" (with south-side African Americans that didn't grow up in Hawaii or go to Harvard).... anti-American racist Reverend Wright, Nation of Islam rabble-rouser Louis Farrakhan, and shady political mover/racketeer Tony Rezko, among others.

Later, when the DNC had adopted him as their prodigal son, he was more than willing to slavishly serve the party's entrenched interests (i.e. unions) and it didn't seem to violate his principles to win elections by disqualifying opponents with questionable legal maneuvers...and thereby running unchallenged.

Mr Obama was also received an early boost from former bomb tossing members of the very same Weather Underground that had planned a Marxist overthrow of the US Government... and attempted to put a hit out on Ronald Reagan.

Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (who had bombed numerous US Government buildings in the 1960's) hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama at their home in 1995. Obama of course denies any significant connection, but records show that he had in-fact e-mailed and called Ayers repeatedly after 9/11... relevant due to the fact that Ayers stated after the Al Qaida terrorist attacks that ""I don't regret setting bombs".

Of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign , Obama distanced himself from all these controversial figures. Not too surprising, considering the shocking opportunism and lack of character this man has displayed throughout his political career- from thrown elections fixed by the party to gangster connections like Tony Rezko- whatever it takes. Most or all previous candidates never would have been able to dodge such issues... but the media's complete abandonment of their traditional vetting role (at least on the Democratic side) allowed the DNC to present an appealing, yet plastic, manufactured-to-order product for electoral consumption... and consume they did.

Meanwhile, Obama had spoken during the campaign of reaching an accommodation with determined and aggressive foes of the United States, such as Iran and Syria... exactly the kind of appeasement of an insatiable enemy that Reagan warned us about for years. What else can a militarily and economically weaker nation like Iran, Syria, or North Korea- or a terrorist organization like Al Qaida- do to get their way with us, except to attempt to scare a majority of our electorate with frightening brinkmanship?

What a contrast this specious and ruthless political chameleon is to the brave and visionary principles of Ronald Reagan. And to add insult to injury, we already have Obama taking a classless cheap shot at Nancy Reagan at his first post-election press conference (while she's just out of the hospital, and 87 yrs old). The problem with the smiling, charming Barrack is that a quite different one tends to leak-out when he's not chained to a teleprompter.

This scheming opportunist is clearly no messiah. And regarding issues of judgement, principle, character, political courage... and true leadership?

Barrack Hussein Obama couldn't hold The Gipper's jockstrap.