Obama Czar: Mark Lloyd

Obama's FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, Loves Hugo Chavez's Revolution
youtube clip

Who Is Mark Lloyd?
youtube clip

=============================

"State radio in Rwanda was taken over by one tribe, one group. And they began to put out propaganda, so that the Tutsis were targeted. And what resulted from the fact that State Radio was able to do that was essentially mass genocide in Rwanda. But the state for this particular tribe controlled the radio very purposefully to make sure there was media and social change. In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution, a dramatic revolution, to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. [But] the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled- [they] worked, frankly, with the folks here in the U.S. government- worked to oust him and he [Chavez] came back and he had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country."
youtube clip

==============================

Meet the FCC Diversity Czar

The far Left Center for American Progress has its tentacles everywhere.

I noted in my column on the Internet Snitch Brigade this morning that former CAP operatives have been installed at HHS and work closely with the health care czar.

At Newsbusters, Seton Motley reports on the new FCC “Diversity Officer” — a racial engineering czar who has been targeting conservative talk radio since his days working for CAP.

Know your enemy:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

These last two get perilously close to the use of “localism” to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time.

source

=====================================

Inspired by Saul Alinsky, FCC 'Diversity' Chief Calls for ‘Confrontational Movement’ to Give Public Broadcasting Dominant Role in Communications

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

Lloyd expressed his regulatory call to arms in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press).

In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.

These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

“Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” Lloyd wrote. “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats’ refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

Lloyd claimed that neither technology nor liberal reforms have been able to overcome the damage caused when government fails to give everyone an equal voice.

Throughout history, Lloyd said, radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

source

Overthrowing the Capitalist System

Michael Moore = Van Jones = Mark Lloyd = Obama

=========================

Director Michael Moore now wants nothing less than the complete overthrow of the modern capitalist system.

Van Jones Admits To Wanting Complete Revolution To Bring Down Capitalism

Obama's FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, Loves Hugo Chavez's Revolution

Obama: "We are 5 days away from Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"

"I heard Obama talk about how he wanted to fundamentally (relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something) transform (to change something completely) America during the campaign, but I never saved any video of it. Now that Glenn Beck has discovered this video we can look back and see that Obama is only doing what he promised to do, which is to fundamentally change America."

"Thanks for connecting "fundamentally" with "foundation". A lot of people don't understand the significance of the word "fundamentally"."

=============================================

Bonus! Get Schooled: Nickelodeon & friends want your kids to "change the system"

so far, anti-Obamacare town hall protesters have been called:

1. an angry mob

2. astroturfers:
Leftist Bloggers Who Get Marching Orders from Obama Attack Protesters as "Astroturf"

3. racists:
example 1
example 2

4. political terrorists

5. Un-American

6. like the KKK

7. like Hamas and Hezbollah

8. evil-mongers

9. thugs who attacked civil rights marchers

10. close to Brown Shirt tactics

11. Neanderthals

12. Functionally Retarded Adults:
Garofalo: Tea Party Protesters 'Functionally Retarded Adults'; Says 'I Want My Country Back' Code for 'I Want My White Guy Back'

13. undermining the country

14. Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists

15. subverters of the American Democratic Process

Obama's insulting gestures...

youtube clip: Obama Gives McCain the Middle Finger?

youtube clip: Obama Gives Hillary The Finger?

youtube clip: Obama's "Pig/Lipstick" Smear On Palin

Obama's gestures

Paul Rahe is the learned professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of the three-volume study Republics Ancient and Modern. Professor Rahe's Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect has just been published. If any scholarly study in the history of political thought was ever timely, Soft Despotism is it. Mark Steyn freely draws on Professor Rahe's new book in the lead article featured in the current issue of the New Criterion.

Professor Rahe has promised us a column for Power Line readers on his new book when he gets access to a library. In the meantime, he has forwarded us his thoughts on the photograph of President Obama (above) that was posted on the Drudge Report yesterday:

On Tuesday, the White House released a photograph of President Obama nonchalantly leaning back in his chair with his feet on the desk, the soles of his shoes clearly visible--as he spoke on the telephone with Benyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Some in the Israeli press have interpreted the release of the photograph as an expression of contempt, intended for Arab consumption, inspired by the hurling of a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad some months back.

Far-fetched thoough these fears might seem, I suspect that these Israelis are not being hypersensitive. Barack Obama has a history of belittling his adversaries in just such a fashion. In April 2008, he was caught on tape during a debate with Hillary Clinton, rubbing his hand across the right side of his face and extending his middle finger in an obscene gesture that many in the audience could see it but she could not, and when this provoked laughter on the part of his supporters he responded with a knowing smile.

Later, after accepting his party's nomination, he did precisely the same thing during a debate with John McCain; and, after Sarah Palin remarked at the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a soccer mom was lipstick, he observed at a rally that a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Again, many in the audience caught the dig and they, too, were rewarded with a knowing smile.

Obama is, in fact, a master of the insulting gesture. There is no other construction that one can put on his conduct towards Gordon Brown when the British prime minister paid him a visit shortly after his inauguration. First, in an ostentatious manner, he returned to the British embassy a bust of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to his predecessor. Then, when Brown presented him with a pen made from timber used in a British ship once involved in putting down the slave trade, he gave him in return a stack of movies on DVD which could not be played on machines sold in Europe.

Were Obama a yokel, one might be able to explain this away. But a yokel he is not, and there are State Department protocol officers who are highly sensitive to the proprieties. It is no accident that, at about the same time, the White House press secretary intimated in the presence of members of the British press that there was no special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. Obama's gesture was a calculated insult--meant to be understood only by those to whom it was directed.

If we are to comprehend what is going on, we must pay close attention not only to what Obama says but to what he conveys in other ways. His tone is nearly always moderate but what he hints at and what he intimates by way of body language often convey the opposite. Witness his warm embrace of Hugo Chavez. Behind the thin veneer of politeness, there is, I suspect, something ugly lurking. In the first of the autobiographies that he claims to have written, Barack Obama frequently speaks of himself as being in the grips of rage. We would do well to take him at his word. If we are to stop him from doing great damage to this country and to our friends and allies, we must take every opportunity that comes our way to unmask the man.

source

Paul Rahe: Obama's gestures, part 2

Professor Paul Rahe follows up on his post "Obama's gestures." Professor Rahe writes:

Just under three weeks ago, I wrote a Power Line post drawing attention to a photograph released by the White House, showing President Obama nonchalantly leaning back in his chair with his feet on the desk, the soles of his shoes clearly visible while speaking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that post, I noted that some in the Israeli press interpreted the release of the photograph as an expression of contempt intended for Arab consumption, inspired by the hurling of a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad some months back. I listed a number of occasions on which Barack Obama demonstrated his mastery of the insulting gesture,

The White House has released a series of photographs in which, as the Drudge Report puts it, Obama directed "the evil eye" at various foreign leaders who visited him. Included on the list were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

I take this, therefore, as an occasion for repeating what I wrote on that earlier occasion: "If we are to comprehend what is going on, we must pay close attention not only to what Obama says but to what he conveys in other ways. His tone is nearly always moderate but what he hints at and what he intimates by way of body language often convey the opposite. Witness his warm embrace of Hugo Chavez. Behind the thin veneer of politeness, there is, I suspect, something ugly lurking. In the first of the autobiographies that he claims to have written, Barack Obama frequently speaks of himself as being in the grips of rage. We would do well to take him at his word."

To this, let me add the obvious: President Obama communicated in a similar fashion his contempt for those in Iran who long for democracy by quickly expressing his confidence in the Islamic Republic's leadership in the wake of the massive demonstrations against the ostentatious ballot-box stuffing that took place in that country's recent presidential election. It was only when John McCain's eloquent denunciation of the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan evoked a strong public response within the United States that, in a hastily organized press conference, President Obama deigned to criticize Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket and his cronies.

As others have noted on this site, our president has not been at all reluctant to align himself with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in denouncing those in Honduras who have mounted resistance to the unconstitutional attempt of President Mel Zalaya to stage a referendum aimed at eliminating the constitutional provision preventing this Chavez protégé from being re-elected for an indefinite number of terms.

President Obama does not have to announce whose side he is on. He can convey by gestures that he is inclined to help America's enemies and to harm our friends, and he has done so repeatedly with consummate skill. For a considerable time, our fellow citizens may remain oblivious to what is going on. Abroad, however, where the politically alert are closely attentive to the attitudes of America's presidents, people already know.

source

A Leftist Horror Story: Larry Grathwohl

an excerpt from "No Place to Hide" on youtube...

Eyewitness to the Ayers Revolution

An interview with Weathermen insider/FBI informant Larry Grathwohl on whether to believe Obama when it comes to Bill Ayers.

When Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn led the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground in 1969, a chance meeting led Army veteran Larry Grathwohl into joining the group. Grathwohl served as a courier, running messages between the group’s leadership (called the “Weather Bureau”) and individual cells that were to carry out attacks.

Grathwohl was also an informant for the FBI.

In an interview from the 1982 documentary No Place To Hide that recently surfaced, Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism.

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Twenty-six years later, I caught up with Larry Grathwohl, and asked him about the Weathermen, their leaders then and now, and what he thinks about the relationship between Bill Ayers and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Pajamas Media: You stated in your interview in No Place to Hide that you wanted us to “imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.” A lot of people have now had the opportunity to listen to you, and contemplate the horrors these people planned. Can you recall who these people are by name, and who the ringleaders of this plan were?

Larry Grathwohl: Conversations regarding this occurred in Cincinnati, Detroit, Flint, and Buffalo. Participants included Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Linda Evans, Jeff Jones, and many others.

Pajamas Media: Was this merely an academic matter to them, or were they serious about killing 25 million Americans that would not bend to their political will?

Larry Grathwohl: I suppose you could consider this a purely academic discussion in that the Weathermen never had the opportunity to implement their political ends. However, I can assure you that this was not the case. There was an absolute belief that they, along with the international revolutionary movement, would cause the collapse of the United States and that they would be in charge. Nixon was of great concern and how his end would be conducted. This may sound absurd in today’s context, but the Weatherman believed they would succeed.

Pajamas Media: Did they ever devise a cover story to explain to the rest of America how roughly one in ten disappeared?

Larry Grathwohl: When I suggested that this might be a difficult proposition they looked at me like I had three heads. They would be in charge! They would be in control! Who would oppose them? Lambs to the slaughter I guess.

Pajamas Media: Were any of those Weathermen involved in concocting this plan particularly excited or enthusiastic about the death camps, or was it merely a means to an end?

Larry Grathwohl: Of course they were enthusiastic as it was representative of the success of “the revolution.”

Pajamas Media: Scattered news accounts on the Internet note that you were instrumental in foiling Weather Underground attacks in February of 1970, in Detroit. The Weathermen built two bombs targeting the Detroit Police Officers’ Association (DPOA) building and the 13th Precinct. Were the goals of these attacks symbolic property damage as were some other Weathermen attacks, or were these targets selected to kill police officers?

Larry Grathwohl: The instructions I received from Billy Ayers was that the bombs to be used in Detroit must have shrapnel (fence staples, specifically) and fire potential (propane bottles). The intention was to kill police officers.

Pajamas Media: One of the Detroit bombs was to be placed on the side of the DPOA building, and the blast was likely to cause damage to the adjacent Red Barn Restaurant, which had mostly African-American customers. Who ordered the attack, and what did he say when you told him that innocent civilians would be killed?

Larry Grathwohl: When I objected to Billy Ayers that more innocent people would be killed in the restaurant, he replied, “Innocent people have to die in a revolution.” Billy also acknowledged during a criticism session in Buffalo that Bernadine placed the bomb at the Park Police Station which resulted in the death of Police Officer McDonnell.

Pajamas Media: Bill Ayers came out of hiding around 1980, became an college professor, and has served on numerous boards and foundations. Do you think he’s changed in his radicalism?

Larry Grathwohl: Has Billy changed? I hardly think so.

Pajamas Media: If conditions permitted, do you think Ayers would still engage in violence to further a political agenda?

Larry Grathwohl: He has acknowledged his support of anti-American groups and stated he felt that the Weathermen hadn’t done enough.

Pajamas Media: Do you consider Bill Ayers an attempted mass murderer?

Larry Grathwohl: I’m not certain Billy is a mass murder; his ego just wants him to be in charge. Note that Billy never does anything that involves risk. He has no problem allowing his women to do the evil task, Diane Oughton and even Bernardine, but never him. As for what he might do, hasn’t he said he doesn’t rule out the possibility of future bombings? [Ayers said he didn't "want to discount the possibility" in this New York Times article from September 11, 2001. -- Ed.]

Pajamas Media: Would you let your children attend a college or university class taught by Ayers or his wife, Bernadine Dohrn? What would you tell parents who have had their children exposed to Ayers’ academic programs, like the Small Schools Workshop?

Larry Grathwohl: As for Billy’s ideas on education, isn’t it apparent? Reading, writing, and arithmetic aren’t important! Radicalism is what’s important. Fits right in with the Billy Ayers view of creating mindless soldiers to follow his commands — where best to lay the foundations of a revolution than with the young?

Pajamas Media: Do you think there is there any way that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama could not have known that Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist? Is there any reason that the American people should accept Barack Obama’s newest excuse about his relationship with Bill Ayers, where Obama claimed that he thought Ayers was “reformed”?

Larry Grathwohl: If we are to believe Mr. Obama, he just didn’t know Billy was as radical as he apparently is. Really? Just like he didn’t know the Rev. Wright was as radical as he is? Obama is a politician and he wants me to believe that he never discussed politics with the Rev Wright or Billy Ayers?

Mr. Grathwohl concluded the interview with a question of his own.

“Have you seen the [Bill] O’Reilly attempts to interview Billy? He called the police to ‘protect’ him! Doesn’t surprise me a bit: Billy needs others to stand up, not him. He’s too important! Do you think his new book [Race Course Against White Supremacy, co-author Bernardine Dohrn] has something to do with his position? I bet we hear a lot from Billy and Bernardine after the election. Especially if Obama wins.

source

A Leftist Horror Story: Jim Jones

"Before orchestrating the murder/suicides 900+ people in Guyana, Jim Jones was the darling of the San Francisco Left. Huey Newton, Angela Davis, and Willie Brown embraced a man who killed more blacks than the KKK. Democrats Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Gerry Brown made campaign visits to the Peoples Temple’s “comrade leader.” The mayor of San Francisco even rewarded Jones for his activism by appointing him chairman of the city’s housing commission. “The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church,” The Nation reported in 1978. Unfortunately, as the years progressed, more Americans gulped down the Left’s Kool-Aid that Jones was of the religious Right and not an atheist leftist."

source

"...As to the second concern, I would direct interested parties to the Evergreen Cemetery in the heart of Oakland, California.

There, in a mass grave, lie the bodies of more than 250 children, the great majority of them black, the victims of the greatest one-day murder of American young people in the nation’s history.

They are, of course, the children of Jonestown. Three year-olds don’t commit suicide. Held in the jungle, often against their wills, their parents did not have much choice in the matter either.

Nor did the children die “in the name of religion” as supposed. They died for the opposite of religion. There was not even a chapel at Jonestown, but the place revealed so much obvious reverence for Lenin, Mao, Che, and Fidel that one might have thought it an extension campus of San Francisco State.

Not surprisingly, it was while at college—Indiana U--that Jim Jones got his first injection of Marx, and he was hooked from the beginning. Replacing capitalism with communism in 1950’s Indiana held about as much as promise as replacing basketball with croquet. So Jones took another tack.

“I decided how can I demonstrate my Marxism,” he would recount years later. “The thought was ‘infiltrate the church.’”

Jones thought of Christianity as a “a dark creation” of the oppressed. Salvation would come through other channels. “Free at last, free at last,” he led his temple comrades in prayer, ““Thank socialism almighty we will be free at last.”

By 1973, after aggressive recruiting in black neighborhoods nationwide, the Peoples Temple boasted some 2500 members, most of them in San Francisco. Better still, they voted as if with one voice, Jones’.

Given their affection for independent thinkers—and so many of them in one place!--Democratic vote harvesters from far and wide wooed Jones like a Southern Belle, Bolshevik or not.

Local pols like Willie Brown, Jerry Brown, George Moscone, and Harvey Milk all came a courting. So too did national Democrats like Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale. “I figured if these people—if anybody should know, they should know,” testified one black survivor as to why he stuck with Jones.

After taking office as mayor of San Francisco in 1976, George Moscone repaid Jones by appointing him to the Human Rights Commission and then to the chairmanship of the city’s Housing Authority. That same year, The Los Angeles Times named Jones “the humanitarian of the year.”

That was just two years before he murdered all those children in Guyana. As at Waco, the progressive establishment rushed to bury the truth along with the bodies. Too much truth might just estrange African Americans from the party that has made Al Sharpton a star.

Now, about that Don Imus!"

source

the Jonestown clan had something in common with Obama's church:

"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, possess a three strike law, then wants us to sing 'God Bless America'. No. No. No. God damn America!" (Rev Jeremiah Wright 2003 sermon)

The whites have got control of the wealth. You've got to have the wealth taken out of their hands, and redistributed, dime for dime, dollar for dollar, acre for acre. It's gotta be in the hands of all the people....." ( Jeremiah Wright??? NO, NO, NO! Rev. Jim Jones sermon, Peoples Temple transcript of recovered FBI tape # q1053.)

"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systemized Liberation Theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book ' Black Power and Black Theology'......I used the word systemized because it was in existence long before Dr. Cone's book" ( Talking point of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.)

"This is a Black Liberation Movement in here. Anything we can do for you, if they give you any trouble anywhere, you've got a friend." (Rev. Jim Jones sermon, People's Temple transcript of recovered FBI tape # q1053.)

WHAT DO THESE MEN HAVE IN COMMON? A deeply ingrained socialist ideology that they both discovered could be best exploited under the auspices of 'christianity'.
Could Barack and Michelle Obama have sat under such hateful and twisted tutoring and themselves remain unaffected? HARDLY.
"America is a mean country"..... (Michelle Obama)
"America is desperately wicked!" (Rev. Jim Jones)
"We can't drive our SUV's and you know eat as much as we want and you know keep our homes at 72 degrees at all times." (Barack Obama)
"It's not fair that you have a right to do with what you want, when other people are starving to death...we must all have the same." (Rev. Jim Jones)

source

Obama, a socialist?? YEAH RIGHT!!

People:

Obama. is. not. a. socialist!!

you bitter clingers keep on repeating that word and it's starting to scare me!!

This is like the witch hunts all over again.

you shouldn't have the freedom to just say whatever you want to...

the worst part is that The One is working himself to the bone each and every day to bring us together and your use of that word musses it all up.

that hateful epithet that you all throw around with abandon is a thinly veiled racist codeword.

can't you see the destruction you leave in your wake?

it's just utterly ridiculous beyond belief to suggest that Obama is in any way approaching a Socialist.

for crying out loud here...

it's not like he spent 20 years in a black liberation theology church...

or uses phrases like:

wealth redistribution
spreading the wealth
social justice
economic justice
collective salvation
sacrifice for the greater good

or has a wife who uses phrases right out of master Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

or was an agitating community organizer working for groups like ACORN, the ABC's coalition, Public Allies, The Joyce Foundation, The Developing Communities Project, and the Gamaliel Foundation

or worked on the Woods Fund and Chicago Annenberg Challenge tossing out money to groups concerned with Social Justice instead of organizations geared toward helping children learn reading/riting/rithmetic

or intends to implement a Global Poverty Tax

or the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

or told rabble-rousing community organizer groups, including ACORN, that they would help to shape the agenda of an Obama presidency

or had a connection with the [Socialist] New Party

or sought out Marxist professors

or attended Socialist Conferences

or had a communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, while he was a youngster in Hawaii

or had a communist propagandist mentor, Sen. Alice Palmer, while coming up in Chicago

or found nothing wrong with hiring the self-proclaimed communist Van Jones for "Green Jobs" Czar

Nope! all indicators point in one single solitary direction: he's just your regular ole average moderate liberal.