• No valid birth certificate has been provided by Obama.
• Obama traveled abroad at age twenty with an Indonesian passport which requires Indonesian citizenship. Dual citizenship is not legal in the US.
• A federal law suit citing over 20 allegations is pending seeking his disqualification from becoming president.

Obama claims he is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

• In Audacity of Hope Obama states that he doesn’t really hold any profound religious belief but that he joined the church for street creds.
• Obama’s environment from birth to his move to Hawaii at age ten WAS Muslim. His instruction, family life, allegiance, and pride was in and of being Muslim. He once stated that the Islamic evening call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he’s ever heard and if necessary he would side with the Muslims.
• Obama has never been baptized as a Christian. To do so would brand him as an apostate in the world of Islam.
• Obama does not believe in the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the only means for salvation, as taught in the Bible. He has professed the belief that there are many avenues for achieving spiritual atonement. Even his church of two decades does not teach biblical Christanity.

Obama claims to love America and to be proud of being an American

• Obama has studied and believes in the teachings and beliefs of F. M. Davis, Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farakhan, and Vladimir Lenin.
• Obama refuses to pay tribute to the American flag or the National Anthem. He calls a flag lapel pin "that pin".
• Obama’s typical public address is a few minutes of thanks and greetings followed by a laundry list of what is wrong with America, how it treats its people badly, and how he, alone, can bring about the change needed and establish economic justice for all. This is classic Alinkyism "rubbing raw their feeling of dissent".
• Obama has toured the world apologizing for the evil America has wrought on the world and promising to make America a global citizen. More Alinskyisms.
• Obama has changed his politics as needed to maintain his poll ratings. This is in strict adherence to the Alinsky tactic of obtaining power in any way possible, regardless of the means. The end justifies whatever is necessary because without power you can do nothing to bring about socialism, Alinsky’s ultimate goal.
• His own campaign boldly states that de-regulation of industry and a capitalistic market are failed, antiquated policies. Obama believes that major, sweeping reform of American society, including the elimination of the middle class through redistribution of wealth (economic justice) is what America needs, and that is the change he believes in and is working for.

To understand who and what Obama is and what his vision for America entails one need only list his known associates, his self proclaimed influences, his reversals of policies during the campaign, his public anti-American behavior, his wife’s public statements and her reversals of demeanor, his use of euphamisms straight from Alinsky’s writings, and his promises made and then broken to not run for president and be the best senator he can for Illinois.

Barack Obama is a dangerous, anti-American socialist who means to dismantle American society as we know it and reform it into a Marxist dictatorship. He will do anything, say anything, and change colors like a chameleon to get the power necessary to do so. To him, the end justifies the means. If you add all this up, Obama’s words and actions become logical and revealing. He wants to bring America down. That is the change we should ALL believe he believes in.

The past couple of weeks have seemed like an eternity in some ways. It was just ten days ago that Sarah Palin accepted the nomination of VP candidate of the Republican party. It has been less than 72 hours since FreddieMac and FannieMay were bailed out by American taxpayers. What with all the attacks on the Palin family, the Obama interview by Bill O’Reilly, McCain’s new policy to change America’s direction, it hardly seems like it’s only been a handful of days. And in that few days there have been many claims made that need to be factualized and the truth be told.

There is a pattern to be recognized here. Democrats tend to deception and a lack of responsibility in order to gain power. Admiitedly the Republican party is not without blame too, but as a matter of policy is realistic, more effective at providing a solution for America’s needs, and generally supports American traditions and values.

This presidential campaign has made the idea of change a political vaguery open to speculation and imagination. The Democratic candidate has made it his mantra and it has eagerly been supported by throngs of idolizers who are able, due to Obama’s lack of specificity, to fill in their own idea of what that change may be. But if the facts of the past few years show anything at all they show that Obama’s promise to change the direction of our country is a pledge that he will, more fervently, continue the policies that have been in effect since the last congressional election and that the only change will be away from the constitution and toward a socialist elite ruling class at a more rapid pace.

In the past two years we have seen the shameful despotic control of Congress by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Their shortsighted, unrealistic, egotistical demands that the policy of no drilling for additional oil sources will be continued, that the mortgage industry relax their qualifications to make home ownership available to lower income earners, their all out war against the Patriot Act, our uniformed forces and their mission, and every aspect of this nation’s defense policies, their perverted demand for windfall profit taxes on the petroleum industry, and many other socialist policies have brought this nation to the place where we stand today. Despite their anti-American efforts and the apparent desire to see all Americans depleated of their savings and way of life, the economy, the military, the president, and the people are still alive and kicking.

But things could and will change drastically if the Democrats win the Whitehouse and maintain a majority in Congress. They will change by staying the same in the underlying scheme of the liberals. They will gain the power to actually do some major reconstruction on the American way of life and subvert the Constitution to that end. The path will be the same, but the speed down the path will greatly increase. That is the change Obama promises whether he specifies it as such or not.

So when McCain says he is for change in Washington we can be sure he means a real change in direction back to the basics this country was founded on. We can know this by his history of pro-American activities and voting record. The facts of the recent past show his to be the real, authentic claim to change the direction of America. When Obama talks change he intends to accelerate us along the route set by Commrades Pelosi and Reid, Schumer and Kennedy, and the rest of the radical, left wing Soviet wannabees. We can be sure of this by examining his past and present associates, his word for word repitition of socialist euphamisms such as "economic justice" and the absence of any reference to adherance to the Constitution, and his obvious disdain for this nation and his continued criticism of its way of life and world stature.

So, which of the two definitions of change are American voters going to choose? Forget all the unimportant details and zoom out to the big picture: America becoming a socialist dictatorship or oligarchy, or America clinging to the Constitution and individual liberty. These are the two basic choices. As another astute townhall blogger has repeatedly, and correctly put it, "Conservatism sells". Let’s all hope so. For the sake of America and her great people, let’s all vote to make it so. SAY NO TO OBAMA!!

We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just about every day this ‘fact’ is mentioned in newspapers and on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said – "A lie told often enough becomes truth."

In this article, I have quoted some passages from the work of Dr J. F. Kenney, published on his firm’s website
www.gasresources.net

It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov’s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.

With the development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov’s biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack. In science, a hypothesis is merely somebody's attempt to explain something. It is merely that – an attempt. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is also an open invitation for somebody else to discredit it by using physical evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is flawed, or incorrect – that is how scientific knowledge is advanced. Einstein is reputed to have remarked that just one fact was all that was needed to invalidate his theory of relativity.

The great French chemist Marcellin Berthelot particularly scorned the hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. Berthelot first carried out experiments involving, among others, a series of what are now referred to as Kolbe reactions and demonstrated the generation of petroleum by dissolving steel in strong acid. He produced the suite of n-alkanes and made it plain that such were generated in total absence of any "biological" molecule or process. Berthelot’s investigations were later extended and refined by other scientists, including Biasson and Sokolov, all of whom observed similar phenomena and likewise concluded that petroleum was unconnected to biological matter.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov’s hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. In contrast to Berthelot who had made no suggestion as to where or how petroleum might have come, Mendeleev stated clearly that petroleum is a primordial material which has erupted from great depth. With extraordinary perception, Mendeleev hypothesised the existence of geological structures which he called "deep faults," and correctly identified such as the locus of weakness in the crust of the Earth via which petroleum would travel from the depths. After he made that hypothesis, Mendeleev was abusively criticised by the geologists of his time, for the notion of deep faults was then unknown. Today, of course, an understanding of plate tectonics would be unimaginable without recognition of deep faults.

Soon after the end of World War II, the Soviet dictator, Stalin, realised that the then Soviet Union needed its own substantial oil reserves and production system if it was ever again called upon to defend itself against an attacker such as Hitler's Germany. In 1947, the Soviet Union had, as its petroleum ‘experts’ then estimated, very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron Peninsula, near the Caspian city of Baku in what is now the independent country of Azerbaijan. At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be "depleting" and "nearing exhaustion." During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran, but in 1946, they were forced out by the British. By 1947, the Soviets realised that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the Middle East, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the Far East, nor in Latin America. The government of the Soviet Union recognised then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R.

Stalin’s response was to set up a task force of top scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan Project – the top-secret US program to develop the atom bomb during WWII – and initially under the same secrecy, and charged them with the task of finding out what oil was, where it came from and how to find, recover and efficiently refine it.

In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress. Kudryavtsev analysed the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims then commonly put forth to support that hypothesis. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir’yev, and K. A. Anikiev.

During the first decade of its existence, the modern theory of petroleum origins was the subject of great contention and controversy. Between the years 1951 and 1965, with the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir’yev, increasing numbers of geologists published articles demonstrating the failures and inconsistencies inherent in the old "biogenic origin" hypothesis. With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of Lomonosov’s eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis discredited, and the modern theory firmly established.

An important point to be recognised is that the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic petroleum origins was, initially, a geologists’ theory. Kudryavtsev, Kropotkin, Dolenko, Porfir’yev and the developers of the modern theory of petroleum were all geologists. Their arguments were necessarily those of geologists, developed from many observations, and much data, organised into a pattern, and argued by persuasion.

By contrast, the practice of mainstream, predictive modern science, particularly physics and chemistry, involves a minimum of observation or data, and applies only a minimum of physical law, inevitably expressed with formal mathematics, and argues by compulsion. Such predictive proof of the geologists’ assertions for the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins had to wait almost a half century, for such required the development not only of modern quantum statistical mechanics but also that of the techniques of many-body theory and the application of statistical geometry to the analysis of dense fluids, designated scaled particle theory.

To recapitulate, Stalin’s team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a ‘fossil fuel’ but is a natural product of planet earth – the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide – two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth’s crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the ‘death’ of planet earth in millions of years’ time. The high pressure causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth’s crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource – by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. What we need to do is develop better geotechnical science, and better educated and trained geotechnical engineers and scientists, to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it.

A team consisting of Russian scientists and Dr J. F. Kenney, of Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, USA, have actually built a reactor vessel and proven that oil is produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, as detailed on the Gas Resources website
www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm

This is what Dr Kenney has to say about how he came to be involved: "In the first instance, the articles on this website are dedicated to the memory of Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev, who first enunciated in 1951 what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. After Kudryavtsev, all the rest followed. Secondly, these articles are dedicated generally to the many geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers of the former U.S.S.R. who, during the past half century, developed modern petroleum science. By doing so, they raised their country from being, in 1946, a relatively petroleum-poor one, to the greatest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world today. These articles are dedicated specifically to the late Academician Emmanuil Bogdanovich Chekaliuk, the greatest statistical thermodynamicist ever to have turned his formidable intellect to the problem of petroleum genesis. In the Summer of 1976, during the depths of the cold war and at immeasurable hazard, Academician Chekaliuk chose to respond, across a gulf of political hostility, to an unsolicited letter from an unknown American chief executive officer of a petroleum company headquartered in Houston, Texas. Thenafter and for almost fifteen years, Academician Chekaliuk was my teacher, my collaborator, and my friend. [JFK] 1. Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951) Petroleum Economy [Neftianoye Khozyaistvo] 9, 17-29."

Needless to say, the last people to tell us the truth about oil will be the oil producers and oil companies, for they of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that oil is a fossil fuel and that it will soon be exhausted, in order to ratchet up the price for as long as they can. And don’t look to the Russians to enlighten the world with the truth about oil either, for they are surely laughing now that the oil price is well over $US100 a barrel.

A US Public Service Radio interview with Dr Kenney may be heard on the Gas Resources website at
www.gasresources.net/Kenney-NPR.mp3

Some may ask "How come all of this isn’t commonly known?" For the answer, one needs to consider what happened to Galileo when he first put forward the hypothesis that rather than the conventional wisdom that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth revolved around the sun. He was branded a heretic and locked up!

You are invited to read an excellent article entitled "Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas", by J. Sacherman 1997, at
www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html

Reproduced here with author's permission.

Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, is a Consulting Forensic Engineer, Marine Designer, Technical Writer, Sub-editor & Technical Editor in Auckland, New Zealand. Peter can be reached at: forensic.eng@xtra.co.nz

The September, 2008, edition of The Ladies Home Journal, (published in August before McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin, mother of five, as his VP) contains an interview of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the single question excerpt below Ms. Pelosi tells the value of having five children as preparation for the daily struggle of politics.

Work-Life Balance
LHJ: You are a mother of five and were a homemaker for many years before entering politics. You say in your book that the skills you honed doing those
things were the same ones you needed when you got to Congress. How so?

NP: Absolutely, and this is what I want women to know, so they recognize the value of their own path, their unique experience. I've been in politics a
while, over 20 years in the Congress of the United States, and this is a very rough-and-tumble.... I shouldn't say 'rough,' let me say a very challenging
arena to be in. But as challenging as it is, nothing is as challenging as raising a family -- nothing. That experience forced me to be disciplined, diplomatic, focused, and successful, and I brought that discipline and focus to the Congress. Also, having a family keeps you focused on the future, which is the biggest inspiration in politics. In order to do what it takes to succeed in politics, you have to be inspired by your constituents, the power of your ideas, and the fact that you speak on behalf of children and their future, whether you have children of your own or not. It makes all the difference in the world.

(Reprinted here under Common Use of Copyright privelages)

It is refreshing to see that Ms. Pelosi disagrees with those who are criticizing Sarah Palin for running for political office while having five children.

Glenn Flowers

The so called news reporting organizations actively broadcasting programming covering the political conventions have lost, completely and justifiably, any semblence of integrity and professionalism they may have once posessed. The common, everyday American citizen is astute and intelligent enough to differentiate between factual, unbiased news reports and highly interpreted, biased and dishonest soap opera episodes presented as a news report but which are, in fact, shallow, non relevant fantasy dramas intended to inspire a pre-determined, socialistic view of the event being "covered" by you. Shame on you all for violating both the letter and intent of the article of the constitution granting the press special privelages of freedom and responsibility.

You and your on-screen scum have damaged the US and the government beyond all of the most extreme fears and predictions ever made by any critic or concerned individual.

You have rightly earned a reputation of being liars, elitists, and socialistic fascist patsies of the like minded Democratic Party leadership and politicians. As a result, you have lost all but the most radical, hate mongering, anti-American retards from your audience.

By following the teachings and beliefs of those such as Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lennon, you have made it obvious what your agenda is for this nation and its people.

But you will never realize the success you seek. The people of America will sweep Congress clean of all incumbent, lifelong, corrupted members and then turn their wrath to those who worked against them and the American way of life they truly believe in, and that definitely includes the main stream mass media whose practice it was to lie and brainwash them believing they were morons. Groups often project upon the masses the flawed beliefs they themselves hold dear. The thief always accuses others of being a thief, a murderer believes all are so inclined. You have made the mistake of believing the people to be as gullible and lacking of character as you liars are yourselves. A grave miscalculation that will insure your being held responsible for the terror and suffering you have wrought. So it is proclaimed, so mote it be.

Glenn Flowers - citizen

I’ve written before on the inherent differences in the mental and psychological workings between the two sexes. I believe the brains of men and women are physically wired different from birth in order to complement each other and make the best possible life together. Well, I have concluded that there is a similar difference in the cerebral wiring of conservatives and liberals that, rather than complementing one another, work in opposition causing grief and animosity between the two in some very important aspects of society. I have attempted to iterate these differences below in the most honest and independent manner possible. The physiological causes for the differences are above my pay scale. Hehehe….

This built in mental control manifests itself with an idealistic philosophy of, "That’s all OK and fine, but…" or, "If I really believe in myself anything is possible." This is almost always considered a positive outlook and a procees for accomplishment, and, it is believed, there is nothing wrong with that. We’ll more carefully examine that premise later.

This predetermined skepticism results in a philosophy of, "Yeah, that’s the way it is, live with it," or "A man has got to know his limitations". This, also, is usually considered a favorable attitude, being astutely aware of the surroundings and taking stock of the pros and cons of that environment. And, again, we believe that there is nothing wrong with that.

But, let’s now examine the effect, both good and not so good, of these mindsets on the lives of their victims both as individuals and in a relationship.

The optimist is just that. Always believing in the potential for improvement as reality, or that reality is not as dismal as others believe, he is incapable of abandoning his pursuit of perfection and surrendering to what actually is. His engrained idealism prevents him from compromising his principals.

The skeptic is just what it says he is. Always careful to accurately assess a situation, he unemotionally considers every perceivable aspect of the moment and doesn’t attempt to gloss it over or make a silk purse out of a sows ear. He is reluctant to believe in possibilities as a given and only admits to the facts as is. This is what is available to him and he will start there and have no expectations that anything is any more or less than what he sees.

We can see, then, why liberals consider conservatives as stodgy, old fashioned, and wrong in their vision of what needs to be done. And equally apparent is why conservatives see liberals as unrealistic and dishonest in the way they analyze the particulars of the world.

Understanding these inherited mental presets would, one might hope, ease the animosities between the rival philosophies. But the sad truth is, due to the inability of the optimist to accept anything at face value and believing that a voluntary change of the conservative’s insistance on basis of fact is possible, the optimistic liberals exploit their idealistic emotion and attack the personality of the realist with character insults and name calling. They refuse to consider the inability of conservatives to accept potential as reality while they themselves are equally unable to accept things for what they are. The conservative, if left to his own inclinations, sees no need or desire to try to change the way liberals believe, choosing instead to accept reality and write them off as what they are, a lost cause incapable of ascertaining the truth.

Glenn Flowers

Tonight at the Democratic National Convention, Michelle "my belle" Obama proved to the world she is capable and, actually, very talented at reading script and doing so with such convincing effect. A convincing and talented performer at least and a potential Oscar nominee, if not an outright winner.

In all reality, is there anyone who believes that she was sincere in all of what she said? Oh, she was sincere about her children and husband. But it was three fourths of the way into her speech before she finally mentioned America. She said she loved America, but lost no time making it clear that America was not living up to its potential, and that Barack was determined to change America and make it what it should be. If it is, as she claims to believe, the greatest nation on Earth, and offers, as she has said, the greatest opportunities for achieveing your dreams, why oh why does she believe that it is in such dire need for change? She feels that America needs to be what it has never succeeded in being. Never has America been what it could have been? America has never lived up to its promise? Is there anyone who believes America is as big a failure as Michelle does?

There is no guessing needed, no doubt about how the Obamas believe America should be changed. Universal healthcare whether you want it or not, equal prosperity for all whether they earn it or not, freedom from want and need, and a world class education for all. Is there anyone who believes those benefits are the responsibility of the government or the taxpayers?

Increasing the capital gains tax, not for revenue, but for fairness. Increasing taxation of the evil, rich capitalists who oppress the working class and cheat them out of a fair wage to line their own pockets. Is there anyone who does not know who signs their paycheck?

Obama considered it a lack of experience, a sign of not being fit to be president when McCain said he had no plan for solving the current mortgage scandal. Barack laughed and thought it a severe gaffe on McCain’s part. Is there anyone who feels McCain, or any president, should plan on fixing the mortgage fiasco?

The view of America is exactly opposite when seen from Obama’s view as it is when seen through the simplicity and perfection of the Constitution and the eyes of We, the People, the majority of Americans. Is there anyone who believes we need to change America into what Obama wants?

I thought not.

Glenn Flowers

The people of the USA are all angry and totally fed up with the actions of Congress. The approval rating for Congress has dropped to 11% while Geoge W. Bush’s rating has climbed to 30%. Still, the majority members in both houses keep blaming our current woes on the failed policies of the Bush administration.

We all know that the overwhelming cause for the high cost of fuel and everything that depends on fuel is the scarce supply. We also know that if the oil companies in America were allowed to explore for and produce those resources we know to exist within our borders, the increased supply on the world market would push prices down and that would cause a reduction in price in the markets as a whole. We know who it is that has been the biggest factor in the severe reduction in America’s oil production in recent years. We know that Congress routinely votes themselves pay raises, seldom acts in the best interest of the people, and spends a lot of time on subjects they should not be involved in. The democrat majority has accomplished nothing since the last election except to deepen the financial crunch the people find themselves in, and the republicans have just sat back and done nothing substantial to help the people. Both sides in both houses of Congress are equally to blame for the state of America today and the majority of Americans from all parties are looking for a way for the people to assert their constitutional authority over their out of control government. Well, there is only one way by which the people of America can control Congress, and that is voting on election day.

But just voting isn’t going to do anything. The people of America have to realize that the politicians have created and promoted the division between the two parties in order to keep Americans from agreeing with voters from the opposite party and voting for common policies that would cause real change in the way congress operates. We have been made to believe that Democrat and Republican voters have nothing in common and are opposite in their views of what America should be. This is a false notion used to keep voters from uniting and demanding Congress respond to the will of the people. All statistics from every source show that just over 60% of registered voters in America hold a view of America that is center to just right of center. Very few are far right or far left. This means that most Americans agree with each other on what needs to be done for America to remain strong politically, militarily, and economically.

Knowing that most Americans are disgusted with a greedy, non-responsive Congress, and knowing that the majority of Americans agree on what America should be, and knowing that the only means we have of changing our government for the better is to vote, the following conclusion is logical, obvious, and a sound method to affect the change needed.

We, the People, the common voting citizens who believe it necessary to change the way Congress operates, need to agree that we all want what is best for America and her people and then decide to replace every member of Congress in both houses and of both parties by not voting for the re-election of any present member, but to vote for a non-incumbent, preferably non-politician for every seat in the senate and house of representitives in every election until no member exists with more than one term in office. This will effectively destroy the long time good ole’ boy cliques and elite power holders who have lost touch with the people they were elected to represent. It will put into power a group of more motivated people who will be more representitive of the people than of their own interests. Seeing the manner in which they were elected over the more famous and powerful career politicians will be a message to them that we, the People still hold the power over the government and that knowledge will tend to make them more willing to do what is in the best interests of Americans.

This is the only effective power we still hold as citizens, and it can only be effective if we all unite in a majority block for a single purpose and vote for a single result. The old patriotic truth of "United we stand, divided we fall," applies directly to the common voting people of America. Only by each voter deciding to vote for a new congress will this change take place. There is no need to vote for a candidate from a party other than yours, or to compromise your political ideals. There is only the need to vote for a candidate who is NOT already a member. No re-elections is our goal. We all know this is needed, we all know we have the means to make it happen. Let’s all, Democrats and Republicans, Independants and Libertarians, resolve to make the change that will return our government to our control.

Make the decision to elect a new congress. Tell your friends we can make a difference if we all vote to replace the corrupt congress in power. It requires only that we all agree as to what the problem is, and agree that this action will, at least, rid us of the entrenched fat cat politicians who have created the problems we all face. If the new congress is ineffective, we can replace them just as easily. At least we won’t have the thieves and liars in power that we have now, and that is a major improvement anyone would welcome.

I hope the simplicity and urgency of this action is understood by all Americans. We can do this if we all use our voting power.

I have just completed reading ObamaNation by Jerome R. Corsi. The book very effectively ties together statements made by Barack Obama both in person via interviews and speeches, and in his autobiography Dreams From My Father, and statements by former political associates, reporters, relatives, supporters, campaign workers, and opponents. Mr. Corsi takes great care to inform readers that all possible methods were used to validate the accuracy of all statements but that some, such as made by relatives or other non-journalist sources, can not be validated by any means but that the statements included in the book were quoted exactly word for word and the proper context given. I can say that throughout the book the difference between statements verifiable for accuracy and statements made "off the record" was always made clear and opinions and suppositions were presented as just that. I saw no instance of exageration, misrepresentation, or wanting attack on Obama’s character but, to the contrary, every effort was made to take Obama at his word, to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt, and to assume his actions and statements had the most honorable of motives.

After reading this book I no longer see Barack Obama as an empty suit who is so inexperienced in politics he lacks any real position on critical issues or the ability to express them. What I do see in Obama is a coldly calculating, far left Karl Marx socialist devoted to changing the USA into a socialist nation where individuals have no importance other than their inclusion in the all powerful state, which he plans to be a part of. The reasons to conclude such about Obama are many and the disturbing facts that have come out about his associations and his own statements are just the tip of the iceberg where his socialist ideology is concerned. Many have reasoned that Barack has associated with the likes of William Ayres, Tony Rezko, Jerry Kessler, Jeremiah Wright, and Saul Alinsky, not, as he says, by accident or coincedence, but because Obama believed in their politics. Many have also deduced that Obama is a socialist by what Barack himself has said in his campaign speeches and has espoused as his platform. This book, ObamaNation, affirms this assessment of Obama’s political agenda in a very well thought out gathering and presenting of known facts and statements by his associates and interviewers.

The single most important aspect of Obama’s political beliefs is the influence of Saul Alinsky, a self-proclaimed Marxist and 60s anti-establishment radical. His claim to fame is as the father of community organizing, a method of attaining considerable power in the form of supportive voter groups. The support of these voters was not to be gained by, as Alinsky put it, "with assistance to the poor or even by organizing the poor to demand assistance," but by "obtaining power at all costs including sacrificing your own morals to lie, cheat, and steal, knowing that with power comes the ability to change what is real, but a deficiency of power can achieve nothing". Alinsky urged his followers to attend public meetings and rallies and listen to what was being proposed, not for the intent of ever working for the changes the people believed necessary, but for the collection of issues solely for the purpose of using these issues as talking points in organizing campaigns to unite the people behind a common cause, a cause which could be forgotten as soon as the targeted candidate had been elected. Eventually, Alinsky’s radical, dishonest approach to political organizing found a welcoming, well organized group willing to accept his teachings in the Democratic Party. For near 40 years the Republican and conservative agenda have been hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky’s tactics. Barack Obama is only the most recent Democrat to put them to use, but he is, by far, the most un-American, socialist individual to be a candidate for the presidency.

Obama’s use of the word "change" is right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and was defined by Alinsky as redistribution of wealth and the demotion of individuals to a component of the state. Alinsky believed, "The single most formiddable obstruction to individual rights is the individual." Barack Obama took Alinsky’s teachings to heart in his organizing work, and put them to effective use in his campaigns for state and federal offices. He is still utilizing these immoral, un-American tactics in his present campaign for president. His method of addressing negative aspects of his background which are made public have become infamous. First he denies any knowledge of the situation, then, when it is shown he did have knowledge, he claims that it came as a surprise and he disavows any belief in the offending matter. When his support of and adherance to the principals in question is shown, he rebukes the offending parties as being extreme and un-American, and tosses their support and long term association aside as if surprised by the nature of their offense. He has, during his campaign, denounced and disaccoiated himself from almost every person who has supported his political career to this point, all for political expediency.

It has become very clear, after reading the logic of Jerome Corsi, that Barack Obama is someone whom the people have always feared would rise up in American politics, the one who would bring disaster and ruin upon America, her people, and the way of life enjoyed by a free, law abiding nation. Read the book ObamaNation and decide for yourself if Obama loves America or if he wants to tear it down and build a nation of zombies instead. There can be no question when all the evidence is intelligently considered.

Glenn Flowers