Posted on 05/05/2010 8:54:20 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
The book's introduction:
"Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that, as this book will show, was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama's presidency.
"As will be seen, these radical associates not only continue to influence Obama and White House strategy, but some are directly involved in creating the very policies intended to undermine or radically transform the United States of America."
Inconvenient, especially, because it's backed by documentary evidence that makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to dismiss.
Radical, pro-Obama Prog activists will, as expected, attack, mentioning irrelevant, unrelated trivialities, the author and the organization selling the book, without even discussing the content and the proof.
"I believe this work is crucial to Americans from across the political spectrum," says Klein, "including mainstream Democrats who should be alarmed that their party has been hijacked by an extreme-left fringe bent on permanently changing the party to fit its radical agenda.
"Indeed, this book will document, with new information, Obama's own involvement with a socialist party whose explicit goal was to infiltrate and eventually take over the Democratic Party and mold it into a socialist organization," Klein claims.
Klein began investigating Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and broke major national stories. He first exposed the politician's association with Ayers in a widely circulated WND article.
The story prompted the Nation magazine to lament, via the CBS News website, that "mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein's articles."
Heeeeere come the attacks by those who don't want people to know the truth about Obama's background... They're the same people who've been going around making up unsubstantiated (and gleefully trumpeted by the anti-Palin Big Media) crap to smear all over Sarah Palin, because, as a real, honest-to-goodness, patriotic American and very potential next resident of the White House, she's a threat to their subversive agenda.
You know, if anyone actually had any meaningful, and proven, dirt on Sarah Palin, they'd already have published an explosive book for us to see the proof for ourselves. Wonder why this hasn't happened, yet? Perhaps because the anti-Palin propagandists have nothing on her and have to settle for making up BS to feed to the Big Media to make viral via traditional sources, away from which The People are turning in droves, and aren't going to listen to?
People want proof, not smears.
This book has proof
bump for later
“Not ripping the guy who posted this, but the author of the piece: It is the DEMOCRAT party not the democratic party.”
Actually, I think you are incorrect. It’s the Democratic Party and a member is a Democrat. I’d be careful throwing the ‘idiot’ word around, LOL.
“The Democratic Party”
Well it isn’t one or the other consistently then.
In the sentence, “When the democrats caucus, it’s a field day for nuts.” you would never say “democratics caucus”.
I mean even look at their website address: democrats.org.
Not democratics.org!
I think they use this to imply theirs is inherently a ‘democratic’ party when it isn’t, and that any other party isn’t. The Democrat party makes a hell of a lot more sense to call them. we call them democrats. The Southern Democrats, not Southern Democratics. Anytime they are discussed by anyone it’s “Well what should the democrats do?”
Except when the word “Party” is behind the word Democrat, we have no “ic” added to it. Seems that ain’t right. We hear and use “Democrat” far, far more often than the other.
But to me it’s a whole Bolshevik (majority) party vs Menshevik (minority) party issue. If you say it that way, it makes it sound like they are the only party that’s democratic. It’s actually hypocritical to say it that way.
It is a matter of usage. When referring to a person or people, it’s democrat or democrats. When referring to the party, it’s Democratic. Kind of like saying someone is Chinese. You wouldn’t say they are citizens of Chinese, they are citizens of China. But when referring to a specific person or persons, they are Chinese.
The difference here is it’s a word that doesn’t ONLY describe a political party, it’s a word that has its own definition, as a form of government. They get a boost from the other actual definition when people say “Democratic”, you automatically think ‘fair election process’ or something like that. You don’t get any kind of similar bump from “Republican” - who the hell thinks “Republic” and thinks “OH they are rule of law folks” nowadays? Hardly anyone knows we are a Constitutional Republic, or what being a Republic means. (FAR superior to a democracy but if you are a dumb ass public school kid or journalist, you’ll be thinking a democracy is the highest form of government around.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.