"Communists Cheer Candidate Barack Boastfully Joining Jackals Attacking
America!"
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Editors Note: This editorial has been approved by a 8-1 vote as
quorum was met before Thursday, August 14, 2008 by 10:15 a.m. After
10:15 a.m., if the votes counted it would have been 9-2.
We want the citizens of the blessed United States of America to
realize that communists, socialists, radical Islamists, terrorists,
anti-Semites, and radical leftists give their support unequivocally to
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama based on evidence.
Our main focus will be on what communists have done in support of Obama.
The Communist Party USA’s July editorial, ‘Eye on the Prize’
gives their support for Obama as reported by Fred Lucas, the staff
writer for http://www.CNSNews.com
That worries us when the Communist Party’s USA editorial is in favor of
Obama and it should concern the patriotic voters of America to realize
the groups that come in favor of Obama and his candidacy.
The late former president Ronald Reagan fought tooth and nail so that
people of the world could have freedom from tyranny that included
freedom against the oppression of communist rule in many nations. Reagan
was unwavering in his desire for nations to have Democratic held
elections and for people to be free which our current president George
W. Bush holds to strongly.
If Reagan were alive, he would have spoken out against the human rights
violations and atrocities committed by the Chinese communist government
against followers of Christ and those who dissent against them as
president Bush has been speaking out against.
By the Communist Party supporting Obama, it is a spit in the face of
Reagan Democrats and our soldiers in the Armed Forces who have fought
with blood and sweat that others can have freedom and that the people of
the world can know the American flag stands for freedom.
 According to New York Time’s best seller, ‘The Obama Nation’
published by Jerome R. Corsi, he lays out a compelling groundwork of
factual information in 304 pages to show how wrong Obama is for the
presidency of the United States supporting his facts with 34 pages of
footnotes.
When the United States Anthem, ’The Star-Spangled Banner’ was
being played, in Iowa, everyone there including Obama’s democratic
constituency had their right hand on their heart except Obama who had
his hands folded together casually in front of him as a large American
flag formed the backdrop. (The Obama Nation, p.253)
That just shows his value he places on the American flag and anthem.
According to The Obama Nation, there is a federal law U.S. Code,
Title 36 chapter 10, Section 171 that states, “During rendition of the
national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in
uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand
over the heart.” (The Obama Nation, p. 254)
As a Harvard law graduate, you would think Obama would know the laws
pertaining to patriotism but then again he does have strong ties
to Kenya and the Muslim friendly candidate Raila Odinga who was educated
in communist East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down.
Obama is even seen in a picture with Raila Odinga supporting his
candidacy for Kenya’s presidency even when it can be shown that Odinga
was responsible for churches being burned down and thousands of
Christians being murdered in December 2007 while Muslim mosques remained
intact.
According to The Obama Nation, ‘in a horrifying incident
following the election, at least fifty people, including women and
children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kikuyu Christians into an
Assemblies of God Pentecostal church and set fire to it, hacking with
machetes any of the Christians who tried to escape the flames.” (The
Obama Nation, p. 104)
Obama has continued to keep in touch with Odinga. Don’t expect the
mainstream media who wants Obama to be elected to report on these
things.
He can talk all he wants about patriotism but his actions do not make us
believe he is patriotic and his associations with communists like Odinga
does not help.
There is a reason Reagan Democrats chose Reagan over the failed policies
and appeasement tactics of the Jimmy Carter administration including the
hostage crisis of U.S. citizens in Tehran, Iran. We hope Reagan
Democrats will vote for presidential candidate John McCain.
Yes, when Reagan became president not only were the hostages released
from Tehran, Iran whose government and people thought of America as the
‘Great Satan’ but during his second term, the Cold War ended including
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall which were a result
of communism in the first place.
According to Lucas, the communist newspaper said a broad
coalition is backing “Obama’s ‘Hope, change and unity’ campaign because
they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right
rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.”
Does that include taking away the Ronald Reagan
years of presidency that included the fall of Communism in many
countries and the release of our American citizens from the tyranny of a
terrorist-sanctioning nation like Tehran, Iran?
Does it include the freedom of the Kuwait people and its government
under the oppression of Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Does it include the topple of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq and
bringing freedom to the Iraqi people by the blood, sweat, and sacrifice
of our American soldiers?
Oh wait! They are communists so how can they think that what Ronald
Reagan did was positive when he prayed to the Lord Jesus and got his
guidance from the Lord to bring freedom to many countries.
The editorial board of their newspaper called the ‘People’s
Weekly World’ wants us to believe ‘30 years of ultra-right rule’ hurt
our nation in the past 30 years.’
Let us not kid ourselves because there are many countries that are
jealous of America and its protector of the world status including its
Judeo-Christian heritage that continues to this day in many areas.
They see in Obama a person who appeals to communists, socialists,
radical Islamists, terrorists, and anarchists of their countries. They
would love nothing more than to ‘move our nation forward with a
broadly progressive agenda’ which they see Obama can deliver.
We strongly oppose Obama’s candidacy for the presidency of the United
States not only because of his radical associations, character, but the
shocking endorsements or support of groups you would never think would
endorse or support a presidential candidate of the United States but
they have joined in support of Obama.
We do not believe in just making smoke-screen allegations and
accusations against Obama but providing you with factual information as
we hold to the Pittsburgh Standard’s motto of ‘We Write for you, You
Decide for us’
It is not surprising the Communist Party USA would support Obama when
you realize that Obama’s mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a
communist journalist and poet whose good friend was actor Paul Robeson
who was a strong advocate of the Soviet Union and a member of the
Communist Party USA. (The Obama Nation, p. 85)
Now the Soviet Union is gone and the Communist Party USA is not too
thrilled.
According to Corsi, Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to
Political Affairs, an openly Marxist political review writes Frank
Marshall Davis was a ‘decisive influence in helping him [Barack Obama]
to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have
been the least anti-communist and the most left-leaning of any
constituency in this nation.” (The Obama Nation, p.85)
Davis, Obama’s mentor was part of the Communist Party USA that currently
supports Obama.
According to Corsi, “In his autobiography, Livin’ the Blues,
Davis himself tells us that being pursued by the U.S. government didn’t
bother him: ‘I knew I would be described as a Communist, but frankly I
had reached the stage where I didn’t give a d_ _ _.’”
When Obama needed advice he would go to Davis according to Obama’s own
autobiography called ‘Dreams from my Father’.
In it he writes about going to Davis for comfort regarding what
his grandmother who was white told him and Davis’ response saying, “She
understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it
is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not. So you might
as well get used to it.” (The Obama Nation, p.88)
Obama’s radical ties and associations are not challenged as they should
be and the far left elects candidates like that to represent them in the
general election but throughout history of presidential elections far
left candidates usually lose the general election.
We do not believe that whatever evidence comes against Obama, the far
left will stop supporting him. They want anyone but a Republican in the
White House. Compared to Obama, Clinton would have been a better nominee
for the Democratic party because at least she can be seen as a patriot
of the United States.
This is not something we can really say about Obama based on the
endorsements he has gotten and the ties to radical groups that he is
associated with.
Clinton has been a staunch supporter of Israel something that cannot be
said of Obama who has received the endorsement of Hamas, a terrorist
organization intent on seeing Israel decimated.
The battle for the United States presidency does not lie with the
far-left or far-right supporters whether those far-right consider
themselves Evangelical Christians or not but the real battle begins with
Reagan Democrats, independent voters, and centrist voters who will have
to see that Obama is unlike them and McCain has more commonality with
them.
Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale lost in a 49-1
landslide against Ronald Reagan who the Communist Party USA hates.
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis lost in a 40-10
landslide against George H.W. Bush who the Communist Party USA hates.
Both of them ran far-left in the election and Obama’s record in the few
years we have shows that he is as far-left as can be regardless of what
he wants voters to believe now.
The evidence we have should not be his words on the campaign trail to
make voters believe but what is in his record. His record should show
centrist voters who voted for Bill Clinton against George H.W. Bush,
that they can be the same voters that can propel McCain to the White
House.
We want a president of the United States that meets the needs of the
citizens of the United States and has backing from some of our strongest
allies including the blessed state of Israel.
We have looked at Obama’s support from the Communist Party USA and one
of his mentors who was part of the party. We hope to show in future
editorials the evidence for Obama’s support from socialists, radical
Islamists, terrorists, anti-Semites, and radical leftists who he has had
ties to.
We cannot in good conscience support a candidate who not only has
received support from the Communist Party USA but from one of its
members who happened to be Obama’s mentor that he writes about.
Our other editorial called “Hussein Has Hebrew Hating Friends For Foes!”
published on July 18, 08 and picked up by
http://obamawtf.blogspot.com and the editorial called "Oust Obama Over Commanding Country Cause
Character Critical!" published on July 30, 2008 will show Obama will be
a danger to the United States.
Obama has said, that there are those that will try to scare voters in
thinking that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on
the dollar bills."
He definitely does not look like all those other presidents on the
dollar bills because they were all white and he is black but Barack’s
blackness is not the issue in this election. His appearance is not what
should make us against him but his actions. In his actions, he is not
like the other presidents or presidential candidates.
In the history of the United States elections, who has received the
support of communists, socialists, radical Islamists, terrorists,
anti-Semites, and radical leftists and has had ties to them except Obama!
The mainstream media fell in love so much with him that they did not
want to cover his shortcomings but the time is now to do that before
America is taken on a path that pleases the world and hurts America.
Let us do our part to ensure that McCain, a War-time hero and patriot
can win Pennsylvania and the other electorates to become the next
president of the United States. We believe McCain is a contender while
Obama is a pretender.
We believe John McCain (http://www.youtube.com/johnmccain),
will put the country first and has a character that
has been tested. McCain is also so principled that he has taken so much
heat from members of his own Republican party. He does not let party
lines cloud what he believes in and what should be done unlike Barack
Hussein Obama who
does.
FEEDBACK I:
Yes. It is interesting to think about the fact that Barack Obama would
not pass a basic security clearance due to his radical ties. Since you
don't need to pass a security clearance to get into office (which is
proper), it is the job of the media and others to expose these radical
connections.
Concurring Board Member, Aug 13, 2008 @ 12:56 p.m.
FEEDBACK II:
Radical Connections? Give me break!
Dissenting Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 1:53 p.m.
FEEDBACK III:
You cannot deny that he has radical connections, and I am not saying he
is the only Presidential candidate to ever have 'radical' connections.
The point is, it is up to him to explain these connections and it is up
to the voters to decide whether they are comfortable with them or not.
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 2:43 p.m.
FEEDBACK IV:
Radical connections in terms of what? If that's the case, we all have
some form of radical connections. Should we, as tax paying citizens,
publicly announce all of the connections that others may deem "radical".
I don't think so.
Dissenting Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 2:46 p.m.
FEEDBACK V:
You are correct that we all may have connections that others would frown
upon. We are not all running for President of the United States. A
candidate for any such high office should be subject to great scrutiny,
whether it be political, personal, or otherwise. When one chooses of
their own free will to seek such office, they should understand this.
Obama doesn't have to publicly announce anything, what he chooses to say
or not say is up to him. My original point stands, it is the duty of the
media to fairly and objectively scrutinize (analyze) his past. It is
then the job of the voters to decide, based on what has been uncovered
and how the candidate responds (or doesn't respond). This is the
American Political Process. Love him or hate him, Obama has a background
very unique from any past serious candidate. This, naturally, makes him
subject to much greater scrutiny.
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 4:09 p.m.
FEEDBACK VI:
And Justin I agree with you completely. But what I find very interesting
is that we have yet to vote on a submission highlighting McCain's
"radical connections" or giving him the same scrutiny. I think it has to
be our responsibility as a boad to vote on articles that are fair. I
don't think this article is fair and balanced.
Dissenting Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 4:18 p.m.
FEEDBACK VII:
I agree that an editorial is warranted that scrutinizes McCain.
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 4:32 p.m.
FEEDBACK VIII:
Yes. Can't say I agree with all the evidence, but "yes" to the general
message.
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 6:12 p.m.
FEEDBACK IX:
Don't you think the fishy evidence is enough to say no?
Dissenting Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 7:53 p.m.
FEEDBACK X:
Well, the overall message I agree with, but sometimes some of the
evidence is a bit of a stretch. Yet, I still think that the editorial
makes a good point, albeit with shaky evidence.
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 8:49 p.m.
FEEDBACK XI:
While I don't believe that Ronald Reagan single-handedly beat the
Soviets, sure...I would like to see a fair article about John McCain
though....
Concurring Board Member, Wed, Aug 13, 2008 @ 9:58 p.m.
FEEDBACK XII:
I vote no. The article isn't balanced. There are no good qualities of
Obama stated, and that just makes it an article that slams your
opponent. There are also many details of McCain which can be scrutinized
as well. Also, why is it that you are painting an Obama vote as
un-Christian? It can be argued that McCain hasn't always had the
cleanest slate either. Let's not judge one's Christian faith based upon
a political vote.
Dissenting Board Member, Thurs, Aug 14, 2008 @ 11:57 a.m.
FEEDBACK XIII:
The purpose of this editorial is to show that Obama is unfit for
commanding the United States of America. Another concurring board member
put it well when he wrote about Obama’s radical ties above. We were
asked to vote on why we believe Obama is unfit to command this nation
and to consider McCain as our candidate of choice.
Board members who do not agree with McCain does not take away from who
Obama is. As a concurring board member, I am glad to see that the
majority of the board that voted after quorum was met voted to approve
the editorial above.
Please someone enlighten me about Obama’s good qualities other than his
eloquent gift of being a great orator.
He is for the holocaust of the unborn and much more radical than members
of his own party. He is for the repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act
which will allow gay marriages to be recognized in all parts of the
country if repealed to name two issues so what are his good qualities?
To the dissenting board member who questioned ‘why
is it you are painting an Obama vote as un-Christian?’, I must ask her
what is her definition of a Christian?
For me the word Christian was a name given to Jews who decided to follow
Christ in the Book of Acts. Following Christ is an act shown by our
actions.
It boggles my mind how someone can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate like
Obama who agrees with abortion on demand and has received a 100% voting
record from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization and who said the Sermon
on the Mount actually supports Gay Marriage.
Obama goes a step further to reject the Defense of Marriage Act signed
into law by former president Bill Clinton. Clinton also knew and agreed
with Jesus that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
For me, my Catholic friends and evangelical friends, the Pro-Life cause
of the unborn is very important including the sanctity of marriage.
I personally feel when I choose to vote for a pro-choice & advocate of
gay marriage candidate, I am spitting in the face of Jesus Christ
letting Him know what He taught me through His Word means nothing in the
21st century especially when it comes to politics.
When I go that path, I am saying to Jesus, you can be part of my life in
all areas except politics. When it comes to politics, let me make my own
decision of the candidate I want regardless of what your Word says
Jesus.
I don’t want to do that! For me it is not about being a Republican or
Democrat because I was looking at our publisher’s webpage and saw an
editorial many of us voted to approve regarding the shame of having
former Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani as our presidential nominee
because of his views on abortion and gay-marriage.
I imagine myself going to the voting booth and asking myself, ‘If Jesus
were to come inside the booth with me, standing right next to me with
His Word that states from Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:27-28)
This is in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. Being
fruitful and increasing in number means having the babies come to life
by being born which is against abortion.
Will I in good conscience be able to vote for Obama?
The answer for me is no!!! This verse speaks against abortion and gay
marriage from the beginning of God’s Word. There are so many other
verses speaking out against abortion and gay marriage.
Does that mean our publisher believes that a person who says they are a
Christian but votes for Obama is un-Christian?
It is not his decision to make because whether you or I are a Christian
is determined by the fruit we bear that God sees in us when we receive
the Holy Spirit in our lives after acknowledging Jesus Christ alone can
save us from our sins. Because He died on the cross to take away all our
sins and shed His precious cleansing blood to give us new life when we
turn to Him, believing in our heart that He came back to life on the
third day to save and confessing with our mouth Jesus is Lord we will be
saved. There is an act of confessing our sin and repenting of it.
The confession of Jesus is Lord is paramount too because Jesus cannot
just be our Savior to be saved if He is not also our Lord. Jesus has to
be the Master of our lives and govern us in all we do.
There are those who want Jesus to save them and then believe they can
live their life however they want including voting for whoever they want
because they believe they are already saved by Jesus so now they can do
whatever they want but Jesus is against this kind of thinking and
actions.
This is not the Gospel. The Gospel has a cost to following Jesus which
is addressed in Mark 8. I see our publisher has been doing teachings on
it for the EXPRESSIONS section of our paper. Also Matthew 7:21-23 puts it
well.
“Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad
fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not
everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will
say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name,
and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I
will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you
evildoers!'“ (Matthew 7:21-23, NIV)
Only God knows whether someone has truly chosen to follow Christ and His
teachings. Anyone can say anything but God knows the heart and our
actions to determine whether we have chosen to follow Christ or chosen
to depart from God’s Word.
Does this mean that McCain is a saint?
Of course not! For me McCain is a Christian and someone who has had a
strong Pro-Life record and also is against Gay Marriage. McCain is also
a patriot to me and Obama’s action do not reflect that based on all 3
editorials.
I found one of our dissenting board members last comment very
interesting:
“Let's not judge one's Christian faith based upon a political vote.”
I don’t agree with the statement.
Let’s take an extreme example and mellow down the examples to address
this even though it may never happen. I am not saying Obama is a
Satanist or Atheist!
Imagine a Satanist is planning to run for the president of the United States and
a Christian decides to cast a political vote for that person.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
For me there is! Because one’s Christian faith is faith in Jesus Christ
and by proxy in His Word.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was
God.
Jesus is referred to as logos meaning the Word.
So by saying, I am of a Christian faith is saying that my faith is in
Jesus Christ and His teachings. His teachings condemn following Satan
and his ways. So someone who says, ‘I love Jesus Christ’, but votes for
a Satanist does not love Jesus Christ.
An Atheist is planning to run for the president of the United States and
a Christian decides to cast a political vote for that person.
Using the same argument, there is a definite wrong in this picture if I
vote for the Atheist.
In essence, when I do that, I am saying that my Christian faith is
compartmentalized and does not affect who I vote for whether it is a
Satanist or Atheist.
How about a candidate who is Pro-choice and for gay marriage?
My Christian faith should affect whatever I do in life including who I
vote for in politics including choosing a pro-life and sanctity of
marriage candidate. I believe all the other issues will take care of
themselves when moral issues are addressed.
I ask myself, does the person I am voting for whether they are Democrat,
Republican, Libertarian, etc hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ?
If they do as a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe it is my duty to
vote for the person who holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ
especially in moral areas.
If I think both candidates claim to be Christians but one candidates’
view is in line with Scripture more than the other candidates’ view who
distorts Scripture, then it is my duty to vote for the one candidate who
comes closer to Scriptural values.
Right now for me that candidate is John McCain who is for the sanctity
of life and the sanctity of marriage among many other great stance on
issues.
What happens if a candidate claims he is Christian but is Pro-choice and
for gay marriage and another candidate is not a Christian but Pro-Life
and for the sanctity of marriage?
In that situation, I would not vote at all but we don’t have this
problem in America because this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian
principles and will be hard for someone to win the presidency who does
not claim to follow Christ.
The bottom line is we need to vote for the lesser of two evils because
both have issues but these next few months will show that Obama’s issues
are coming to the forefront from books like ‘The Obama Nation’, ‘The
Case Against Barack Obama’, etc.
Because of my faith in Jesus Christ, I intend to vote for John McCain
who I have heard speak on an Evangelical Christian channel. The only way
that I may not vote at all in this election is if McCain chooses a
Pro-Choice candidate who goes against the Word of God.
This is the 21st century but I cannot separate my walk with the Lord
Jesus and who I vote for. You may differ. It is between you and the Lord
who you vote for and how you are convicted by the Lord.
‘Having peace about it’ should never be a valid excuse to do something
if that peace contradicts Scripture, for Satan can come as a beam of
light.
I heard a true story about a Christian woman who wanted to divorce her
Christian husband because she was not happy with the marriage anymore.
Based on her selfish reasons, she went to the Lord to pray about it.
After she prayed she came back with the response, ‘The Lord is ok with
me to divorce my husband, because I have a peace about it’
When God speaks or gives us peace, He will not go against His Word. God
is against divorce for what God has joined together let no man separate.
So her peace was not from God.
A dissenting board member’s response was very thought provoking to
prompt this response. I thank that person for their dissenting opinion.
Concurring Board Member, August 14, 2008
Express
Your View
|
.Click
picture to read my dad's memoriam:
Nov 01, 1941 - Dec 17, 2007
Previous Editorials
by PS2008 Board:
PS Editorial:
"Oust Obama Over Commanding Country Cause Character Critical!"
(July 30, 2008, 4:11
p.m.)
Editorial
of PS2008 Board:
"Hussein
Has Hebrew Hating Friends For Foes!" (July 18,
2008, 12:41 p.m.)
Editorial of PS2008 Board:
"Badmouthing Black Woman Willingly, Jacobs Justifies Expelling
Employee!" (May 23, 08,
10:14 p.m.)
Editorial of
PS2008 Board:
"Homosexuals Have Maligned Marriage Maledicting Messiah's Message!"
(May 16, 08, 5:01
p.m.)
Editorial:
"SGB should rendition resolutions supporting some students!"
(April 05, 08, 11:10 a.m.)
Editorial:
"‘Gone Baby Gone’ Gives Gritty Guarantee!"
(Feb 13, 08, 1:03
p.m.)
Pitt News Rebuttal Editorial:
"People Provider For Ongoing
Abortions Abhors Administration of Bush "
(Jan 24, 08,
9:30 a.m.)
Editorial:
"Patriots
Perfectionist, Bill Belichick Tumbles Through Treason"
(Feb 05, 08, 2:08
a.m.)
Editorial:
"GOP's Gutless, Giving Guiliani Galvanization!" (Jan
19, 08, 2:02 a.m.)
|
