Democratic Party Chooses Cowardice in पिचक ऑफ़ बी.ओ.) Hussein Obama as Front Man

The 2008 Democratic Party choice for a Presidential candidate seems to be a cowardly choice. Perhaps after 2001 and the terrorism of Muslim bombers the Democrat Party under Pelosi fainted away too far to the lay down and be invaded posture. How else can one explain their choice for someone named as the inspiration religious leader (and his uncle) of the terrorists that killed thousands of Americans 9-11 2001.

The Democratic Party leaders gravely err in putting out that John McCain is a G.W. Bush kind of guy-they couldn't be more wrong. As Kevin Phillips wrote in 'The American Theocracy' the Bushes are a sort of religion for oil administration, and that warped G.W. Bush's potential as a President. McCain is a free man and a loyal American with several generations of government employee forefathers with nothing but the best interests of the nation at heart, and he will change his course as radically as a jet fighter avoiding SAM missiles I would guess to accomplish his mission of securing the safety and prosperity of the United States through political means. Obama is a comfortable elitist able to pander to Negroes, Hispanics and homosexuals/bisexuals with little experience beyond that of lawyering in Chicago and being on the fringes of the in-crowd. Yet he has connived as a petty politician before his rocketing ascent to challenger for the Presidency with the neo-legitimate political Chicago underground people. Experimenting with Obama's warped views and pretenses for the nation's future is packed with high risk. Those that believe he will have support from wealthy elites in global corporations may be guessing wrong. Obama won't be preaching to a choir when elected by a minority of the people, if elected. If the prestige of getting a black man elected is so important to Democrats that aren't white that they will support the economically unqualified candidate Hussein Obama, make Louis Farrakhan and the fruit is Islam a little too happy and risk a sustained downturn in the U.S. economy in 2010 the people may return a Republican Senate to set the clock back to 1994.

Obama has claimed that the United States wrongly ended the Democide in Iraq that claimed 50,000 innocent lives during the sanctions era and should instead have attacked Afghanistan with more troops stationed there in 20-20 hindsight. Obama plans to remove the nation reconstruction military security forces from Iraq that the United States has deployed in a year and a half. That tremendous gamble can throw the entire middle east in to protracted destabilization and high risk of war, it can foment a Shia-Sunni conflict and perhaps create a foundation for a war to remove the Saudi royal family and the 50,000 princes with the derivative effect of halting the flow of oil to the world from the middle east for a few years.

Afghanistan did have many Al Qa'eda terrorist training there during the Clinton years and Bill launched a few cruise missiles at them perhaps helping to provide an idea of how a pay back in New York should occur. Maybe Chicago Democrats and youth supporters yearning for the peace and prosperity without much war of the Reagan-Clinton years offered up their immunization to attack in the neo-Muslim symp B. Hussein Obama. They somehow imagine that they can pull the plug on Middle East reality and U.S. involvement and subdue terrorists that were offended by G.W. Bush but pacified by Bill Clinton. They believe the Reagan peace dividend can return as it did during the Clinton years and that Obama can find change and prosperity for them. It may be that the selection of a candidate named Hussein is a way for the extreme anti-war Democrats to show solidarity with Saddam Hussein posthumously.

The coalition did remove the Taliban from Afghanistan that is now rebuilding. The Indonesian 'Taliban' party equivalent supports an Obama Presidency as sympathetic to Muslim interests there. The terrorists from Afghanistan always were led by Yemeni and Saudi Arabs largely, Obama is wrong when he believes that they cannot just relocate but are some sort of local 'Indians' that can be rubbed out. Al Qa'eda and the movement to create a Caliphate in the middle east is a protracted concern that will outlast the next administration and which requires a long range rational basis to combat in order to safeguard U.S. national security first. That plan includes the construction of an impassable border barrier zone on the Mexican border to prevent takeover of U.S. Indian reservations by imposters and the muling in of covert munitions to attack Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Obama would need to send maybe an additional 100,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan along with a host of advisers and trainers to create a bomb-proof indigenous economy structure and that would be costly. His planning for the U.S. economy largely involves raising taxes and sucking up to rich globalists instead of boldly moving toward substantial support for a renewed U.S. nationalism to replace the fawning globalism subverting national interests.

Make no mistake about the faith and political feeling of the founders-they were Christians and Americans-not globalist, Germans, Brits, French or whatever. In becoming an American they created a new identity as U.S. nationalists that was fundamentally different than anything ever before created on Earth with national rather than racial allegiance. The founders were not sympathetic to foreign religious allegiances either-their fathers and sons would not bow five times a day to Mecca Saudi Arabia nor did they believe that law and morality were meaningless because there is no afterlife or that it could be worked out over future lives in reincarnation payback payments.

Sure one can say that the Democratic Party got rid of its Middle American status during the Ted Kennedy ascendancy. The Bostonian, catholic Kennedy's rightly hated southern Democrats with the history of being the pro-slavery party that fomented the civil war. In throwing out the white middle class and moving toward a coalition of homosexuals, women, blacks and Hispanics the Democrat Party became a still substantial party moving out of the mainstream of solid production work as unions were busted and jobs and factories sent abroad. The Democrat Party became the party of symbolic opposition to everything involving war or national defense except when in came to spending bills with billions of attachments earmarked for their districts. During the protracted nation rebuilding in Iraq the Democrats protested with lots of music-and a brief aside about the popular cult of music and its political influence today.

Popular music and its cult of nudity is a fine way to protest work and war. Yet music is at its core just a bunch of musicians strumming melodies and singing-its non productive entertainment with a lot of agents, key grips and fans not to be used as a way to get an economy going. A certain amount of people can sell nudity yet with too much glitz not enough work gets done. Not everyone can strum guitars and drink wine all day laying in the grass-nor can everyone be a voyeur object of income.

The music and entertainment business does have a cult of nudity and hierarchy of cool that when exported to the real world of work has a corrupting effect. Can the best physicist be chosen by boob dimensions, or the most inventive mind or hardest workers selected by flat abs and porn star endowments? The values of the entertainment world basically need to be contained in a rational location or unreal social values can be promoted too far politically such that the dazed and confused masses vote for feel good choices. So why do the masses feel good about B.O Hussein Muhammad Obama?

The Chicago lawyer says all the right stuff about cool values of non-aggression, yet he is exceedingly aggressive at promoting himself. Obama may be thought of as a scarecrow that will keep Muslim terrorists away from Chicago since, after all, how could anyone want to bomb a pre-bomb nation led by an Obama with the name of 'the prophet' and his uncle? The Democratic Party readily tosses out its national heritage of Christianity and American history in selecting a first generation American who attended elementary school in a Muslim nation, has a Muslim father and son and unknown numbers of relatives in nations with Al Qaeda terrorist agents such as Kenya.

Obama said in the debate last night that he associates with the billionaire Warren Buffet and a list of other elite sorts of Americans. He happily tossed Bill Ayers the well known Chicagoan whom he never denounced before running for President, his decades long Preacher the Reverend Wright and other associates under the train heels of personal advance. Obama is sure his new friends and the reaming of a choir he is preaching to will continue after election, if elected. America would have another lame Jimmy Carter times four President without a clue about how or where to lead the nation's economy, and without any ability to defend against Al Qa'eda and newer terrorist threats abroad without fundamentally contradicting his record-yet he will have the support of music and the entertainment business at least.

Bill Ayers is one of the top three living domestic terrorists in modern American history. Ayers was a bomb maker for the Weathermen branch of the Students for a Democratic society. Ayers was a roommate of a fellow terrorist blown up building a bomb. Ayers planted bombs himself and was the education secretary for the Weathermen for a time. Ayers was on planning councils during the era following the student 'days of rage' that made a shambles of social order in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Bill Ayers must have been the most well known terrorist in Chicago during Barrack Obama's time living there. Ayers has also made statements that he generally is unrepentant about planting bombs, and said wished he had planted more. Ayers was one of Obama's earliest political supporters for the Presidency.

It is interesting that anyone might consider the association with and support of a 'former' terrorist for a Presidential candidate irrelevant; names and language, national educational origin and about anything else that might help to determine if a Presidential candidate is a good bet to be trustworthy and competent should be set aside as politically 'controversial' or unfair. If Ayer's former methods were used one could just put a bomb to it and blast it all to hell and gone. Ayers took part in bombing the Pentagon and the New York City police headquarters, but hey, to some that's what democracy is all about. What really sets off the ire of Democrats is Nixon's burglar team break ins of Democratic Party headquarters-would Ayers have just bombed it instead if it were the Republican's and it was his mission?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Radical_history

I personally am for forgiveness of aging bombers when their blasting years are over if they haven't splattered any bodies about during their careers and if they promise to never, never do it again and lead constructive lives. Ayers has thrown his support behind Obama so obviously he has really changed.

Barrack Obama's early education in elementary school in Indonesia (he lived there from age 2-10)was mucked over by a reporter named Michael Sullivan this morning on N.P.R. Early socialization is the most important of one's life psychological theorists write, so in a sense Barrack's spiritual home is Indonesia and the mosque, the prayers to Mecca of his father and son and the anti-American attitudes that ran deep when he lived over there on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. Indonesian language is a deep part of his subconscious-

The Indonesian equivalent of the Taliban approves of Obama as they believe he will be simpatico to the Muslim cause, and that would not bother those radicals that worked against rule of law in the United States in the 1960's and 70's perhaps as they may have some sort of different vision for America than the utopian non-fossil fuel based budget surplusing national ecological economic future with secure borders that I have.

If Barrack Obama has too many radical, leftist associates that are the equivalents of syndicalist anarchists and nihilist terrorists breaking up bodies and personal finances of Americans in the world today so far as possible-if they have a vision of a United States without straight white males (is that why Biden is symbolically Obama's short) is Obama potential more than just a candidate running against George W. Bush, but a tool of destruction of the United States and of U.S. national self-interest?