Obama's real agenda

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: Anybody willing to listen
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Troubling revelation



You know how life goes along apace, nothing really happening, and then suddenly, from out of nowhere, you hear or read or see something that forces you to reevaluate, make hard decisions, despite wanting to just turn away and go back to the way it was? I hate it when that happens. But it does, and yesterday, it happened again.
I heard some very disturbing, potentially devastating news. A radio talk show host began to quote a story out of the current Investor’s Business Daily, a well-respected financial magazine.
The host began by asking a few callers if they had heard about “Trooper-gate”, the flap over Governor Palin’s involvement in the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. Which she was. The Trooper was Palin’s brother-in-law until recently. He was physically abuse to his ex-wife. Palin fired the guy who was over the Troopers because he was blocking her investigation. That guy said, and I quote;

“Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process.”

The callers knew all about it. The host was making a point. That being that no one had heard the other story concerning Senator and Mrs. Obama, which broke in a major financial publication and instantly went nowhere. The paper told us that Barak and Michelle Obama were involved in an organization called “Public Allies”, a social activism outfit in Chicago. Barak was a founder, and Michelle was the Executive Director. They have branches in about ten cities, but plan, when they get to the White House, to make this a nationwide movement of volunteer training and service. Sounds great. Naturally, they will pay for it with tax payers money to the tune of as much as 500 billion a year.
But that’s not the troubling part. Remember when Obama said, speaking to the America public, he would “never let us sit idly by again, never allow us to be unengaged”? This is what he meant. Public Allies is intended to be a “Universal, voluntary Public Service.” Let’s see . . . universal, that means everybody, and voluntary, that means . . . well, everybody again I guess. (Now that I think of it, that’s a great description of our income tax system; a universal, voluntary public service. Check the instructions in your tax form. It’s voluntary.)

According to some recent disaffected graduates from the program, here is what they learned in the training seminars from Public Allies:

A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says “it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias.”

Some of the activities the volunteers will be involved in will be, rallying and protesting for “Justice and Equality”, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail, and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare programs. While there is no doubt they do some good work in communities, and that many of the individuals are sincere about their service, a lot of them don’t like the indoctrination atmosphere in the seminars and mandatory retreats where the recruits are told that “individual salvation depends on collective salvation”. "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture."
Now comes the part that drew a line I will not cross.

A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege.

Someone is going to attempt to make your children believe that heterosexuality is an ism. The ugly specter of politicizing sexuality raises its head once again. First of all, two seconds of idle reflection will reveal the outrageous (and purposeful) flaw in such a statement. The people making these incendiary statements are humanists, by and large, who believe that we are organisms like any other living thing on the planet. What happened to 100 million years of evolution? If one is a Darwinist, one accepts that we evolved to become what we are. Heterosexuality is our method of reproduction, which according to their own propaganda, is our only reason for existence—to reproduce! But here comes the Public Allies—remember, Barak is a founder and Michelle the Executive Director—telling us that heterosexism is a product of Capitalism? White Supremacy? Male dominated privilege? Are you paying attention to this? If that’s the case—and it clearly isn’t—then what does that say about homosexism? Which has nothing to do with reproduction. I’m sure someone will want to declare that I’m misreading their pamphlet, that heterosexuality and heterosexism are two different things. They will claim that heterosexism is a learned bias towards heterosexuality, which they will equate with homophobia. But we can’t have it both ways. Is our reproductive system learned or natural? This should mean that homosexuality, by their own logic ,must be a product of something as well, rather than the natural result of genetics we have been lead to believe. Does this mean that if cultures were something other than “Patriarchal” we would not have reproduced? This is nonsense. This is the worst kind of dialectic, and it sounds familiar. This kind of rhetoric comes straight out of radical Marxism.
We have seen this before—when people conspire to alter the landscape by speaking from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing, while meaning another. That is the definition of “Dialectic Materialism”, the system Marx used to indoctrinate the proletariat. It is the same kind of duplicitous dreck the Nazi’s used to bamboozle Chamberlain, who famously came back to England crowing about “peace in our time” while Hitler invaded Poland.

Okay, I know many of you don’t believe a word of this. I’ve probably offended the sensibilities of a few people, and I apologize. But ladies and gentlemen, I am not wrong. Vote for this man at your own peril. As for me, I am not going to be on the wrong side of this. I am not going to have to sit there when I’m eighty and have my grandchildren stick their fingers in my face and scream at me “you knew back then! And you did NOTHING!” Because that sounds familiar as well.

I do not know Barak Obama. I do not—cannot—know his heart. But I don’t think he is evil or conspiring. I think he has an agenda, as does every politician, that he wants to lead the country in a specific direction based on what he has leaned and internalized—his values and standards, his ideology, his core beliefs. I believe the same of John McCain. But I believe (and this has been reinforced by the Public Allies story) that Obama is essentially a socialist, which I have claimed before. I don’t believe espousing socialism, or communism, makes a person evil, or bad. But I do strongly disagree with the tenets of both. I believe that anyone in this country is welcome to think of themselves as a socialist or a communist, a Nazi, a Utopian, a Bokonanist, an atheist, a religionist, a pagan . . . pretty much whatever they choose if it isn’t illegal or immoral, and I don’t see socialism as either. However, in this country, our system of government is based on the idea of a Republic, a limited form of democracy, the idea that the individual is sacrosanct, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, that a free market, unfettered by state control, will lead to better lives and livelihoods. These ideals are the antithesis of socialism. It makes no sense for someone to try and change our heritage, our legacy, our Endowment, to the opposite of what it is. If someone insists on living a socialist life where wealth is distributed according to the interests of the state, should they not go found their own country? Their own government? Or immigrate to a country already set up to mirror their beliefs? If a person wants universal health care and the redistribution of wealth and the absolute acceptance of every lifestyle on an purely egalitarian basis, should they not relocate the Canada or Sweden or France? Why the strident insistence that we change this country? What is the purpose of this desperate attempt to remake America in the image of the former Soviet Union? Does Obama still believe—despite solid evidence to the contrary—that his system is superior? Can anyone possibly be that naive? Or selfish? Or is it simply that no one believes these accusations? The truth is, everyone who votes for Obama this November, will be voting for a socialist state and the death of America as we know it. Whether that will actually happen is another issue, because a lot of people won’t want to let it happen once they finally understand what’s happening. And we still have Congress and the Judicial to act as a balance to whatever the executive branch tries to do. I’m just astounded at the number of people who either do not get this, or are on board with it. Obama only has your best interest at heart if you actually want your freedom and independence to be restricted, actually want your money to be taken away and given to someone else, and actually want your country to be handed over to the globalists, it’s sovereignty diminished, it’s power stripped, and it’s Constitution rewritten to reflect the Communist Manifesto. I guess a lot of people want to be taken care of. Well, I do too, but not by the state.

Now ask yourselves, why did no one pick up this Alliance story? They can’t have missed it. Where’s NBC on this? Or Keith Olberman? Or anybody? But we know all about Bristol Palin’s indiscretion, don’t we.

Lastly, I have said several times how unhappy I am with the choices this election. I am not a McCain guy. I have been vacillating between not voting at all or writing someone in. But this latest revelation has galvanized me. I will vote for John. At this point I am not willing to gamble with Obama’s ideas of change. So yes, if it means four more years of the same old thing, I will settle for that. But I don’t think it will be the same. I think it will be interesting. And at least I can be confident that I will still have an America when McCain is finished.