marx (3)

“Thanks to the American media’s blackout of the Climategate scandal revelations in East Anglia, England, Americans have not been privy to the revolution in thinking going on in Europe over the last thirteen months. Two terms, in particular: “Watermelons” and “Mean Greenies” have come to dominate the Europeans’ new evaluation of the leaders in the environmental movement in general and of the Global Warming alarmists in particular.”


Time to Strain Your “Belief Muscles” Again?

You may have trouble believing this story IF you believe the following lies propagated by Progressive politicians for the last 20-50 years:

A. We’re running out of oil in the world. This blog will change that notion for you.

B. We’ve long ago run out of oil in the United States. This blog will set you straight.

C. Man-made global warming is endangering the planet. Most real scientists here in America and almost all real scientists in Europe are positive that statement is Untrue (see the top link below this paragraph). In fact our American media silence in the United States on those two facts (the truth about global warming itself; and America’s scientists’ convictions about global warming even before the Climategate conspiracy was unmasked) amounts to a huge betrayal of the American people and of our U.S. Constitution. The “Climategate” e-mail release thirteen months ago in Europe has only been covered here in the United States by the Wall Street Journal and FOX News among the media but the internet, both here and in Europe, is alive with it. While Americans have believed that Global Warming is dooming us, Europe over the last year has almost totally discredited these alarmists (in case you missed out on the Climategate revelations and upon the biggest scientific fraud within the global warming lie: the next two links will put you onto the truth).

D. Environmental leaders (known in Europe as “Watermelons” and “mean greenies”) have your health, prosperity and happiness in mind always.

E. Only Green-Tech can save our planet and our economies in the long run.

The lies associated with items D and E immediately above are a bit complicated, but will roll out of the information below. Before we get to the meat of the blog, let’s clear up the key source of almost all of the lies you’ve been fed about energy over the last 50 years; and the source of the great majority of the political lies spread about the world over the last 162 years. American “Progressivism” (which called itself by that name for about a quarter century and then called themselves liberals for over 80 years) is based upon English Fabian Socialism. The key group pushing these ideas for almost 130 years now is called the Fabian Society:

The key belief of American progressives is that we must “progress” beyond the outdated and ill-conceived U.S. Constitution so that we can “progress” toward their notion of an earthly Utopia where, they say, we’ll take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his needs (the 162 year old desire of Karl Marx writing in Das Kapital). If you have never before seen the Fabian Society unmasked; and “kindly” George Bernard Shaw stripped naked beyond Pigmalion and My Fair lady, you owe it to yourself, to America and to our future to visit the website just above. The Fabian Society also gave us the London School of Economics closely tied to the American progressive desire for a single global ruling elite. The London School of Economics also gave us George Soros.

At the risk of seeming racist, let Rajjpuut say this: George Soros can aptly be called “Barack Obama’s MASSA.” He is the puppet master pulling the strings of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and American progressivism.

The eighty year old Mr. Soros can accurately be compared to the ageless Emperor in the Star Wars movies. He grew up as a fourteen year old capo, a Jew working with Hitler’s Nazis, getting other Hungarian Jews to “report” for their transportation to the death camps. He’s only become more sinister since.

Known as “the man who broke the Bank of England” super rich Mr. Soros went from hundred-millionaire and became a multi-billionaire by profiting from wrecking four countries’ currencies over the last 24 years). Mr. Soros has said on more than one occasion, “The number one obstacle to world stability is the United States.” He aims to destroy our currency, impoverish the country, and with the help of the 48 progressive American non-profit foundations he’s created (start with the Tides Foundation; Center for American Progress; and his Open Society Institutes and spread your research from there . . . Mr. Soros is one helluva busybody at a time in his life when most people are content to go fishing) Georgie is seeking to push us all into one-world government led by elites like . . . well, George Soros), he may well succeed.

Progressives in general and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros, who have all broken bread together on many occasions, now want to break your back. That’s where the lies come from. Back to our main points of interest . . . .

Item #1 At this present moment, Green-Tech is a flim-flam.


Natural Law (mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Federalist Papers and applying to such things as the Law of Gravity as well as to human behavior) discoveries in the area of wind tech; solar tech; etc. are 300 million years behind fossil fuel. We’re NOT saying that some new Edison in five years won’t or can’t revolutionize the entire green-tech picture and eliminate the need for fossil fuels overnight. What we are saying is that green-tech right now right here is science-fiction from a viable nationwide standpoint. Is that a serious problem? If the underlying scientific principles required to make PRACTICAL energy on a grand national scale don’t yet exist . . . everything based upon saying that “YES, YES THEY DO TOO EXIST!!” is a scam and a national betrayal. How big a national betrayal? Consider this: In 1997, Spain had the healthiest economy in Europe and was creating the most jobs on that continent with unemployment about 4%. Today Spain is one of seven seriously near-bankrupt European countries with unemployment at 2o.8%. How did that happen?

Spain bought into green-tech in 1998 and began to heavily subsidize clean energy jobs. Results of a Spanish green-tech study done three years ago show that 2.2 jobs in the real economy were lost for every single green-tech job created. Like Obama with the stimulus (where jobs lasting one week were credited the same as permanent jobs), the Spanish exaggerated the job creations via green-tech. Only 10% of Spain’s green-tech jobs proved permanent and most paid between U.S. $10-$14. Mr. Obama has promised to give us “five million new green-tech jobs” which extrapolated toward the Spanish example would lose us eleven million real jobs; only 10% of those newly created green jobs would prove permanent meaning that only 500,000 permanent jobs would be created and we would have an American version of the Spanish green-tech experience on our hands . . . a 22/1 debacle in lost jobs compared to jobs created (11 million real jobs lost; only 500,000 modestly-paying green-tech jobs created).

So for those of you who thought Mr. Obama was exaggerating when he told the San Francisco Chronicle that his policies “would bankrupt the coal industry” and “under my policies of cap and trade the price of electricity would necessarily skyrocket” . . . he was a straight-shooter on coal and the cost of electricity, but he was hugely exaggerating about the “benefits” of green-tech jobs at this point in time because the technology does NOT exist.

Item #1.5 The oil critics are NOT asking the right questions . . .

. . . that’s why they keep giving you and me only the answers they want us to hear and never tell us the truth . . . .

The answers they want us to hear are wind, solar power and other “Magic Clean Green” energy sources that do NOT actually exist in any meaningful way on a national scale. The truth is that fossil fuels are and have been the preferred source of power because right here and right now only fossil fuels make sense. In a nutshell, the question comes down to practical, efficient and cheap energy. Fossil fuels are all three and they’re getting cheaper (except for artificial barriers thrown in our way by environmental regulations to make slow, inefficient and expensive green vehicles look somewhat more attractive) by the day. For example the Swedes have come up with a cheap way to make extraction much more efficient for getting out 60% of the unreachable oil. For example the Canadians have “trained” a tiny microbe to allow them to take previously worthless coal tar and turn it into clean-burning methane gas. If the only answer the media and the politicians and the greenies want you to hear is so-called “green-energy” (solar power requires huge pollution and energy use in the manufacturing stages) then the truth will not get to you and the actual dollar savings you’d be expecting can just be taxed away.

Item #2 Would you believe our conventional oil supplies will quadruple or quintuple in your lifetime if we want them to?

It’s true.

As the price of oil rises and the technology for extracting it improves dramatically, we are every day returning to old “dried out wells” and eventually harvesting two to three times the original yield of those wells. Besides that, exploration methods seeking new wells are now about 400% more accurate, so less money is wasted drilling “dry-holes.” Here in the United States and southern Canada we have also discovered the Bakken Formation, which is the largest oil reserve ever found, bigger in area than the entire Middle East . . . of course we’re not allowed to drill there thanks to ridiculous prohibitions and only the reservation Indians are taking advantage of it so far. It’s also true that the same people who are limiting our drilling have seen to it that this country has not built a new oil refinery since 1974! By the way, the oil is there if we choose to go after it. We may reasonably NOT want to go after it, however, read on . . . .

Item #3 Would you believe that if we want it, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming could supply the energy needs of this country for five to six hundred years?

Also true. Keragen or Marlstone (usually MISnamed: “oil shale”) deposits in western Colorado as well as Utah and Wyoming hold that much stored energy. These deposits require a “mining” approach rather than a conventional oilman’s drilling etc. The Indians told the Whites about the “rock that burns” 155 years ago, now if we want it, we’ve got boundless energy sources using that keragen. We may, however, reasonably decide we don’t want it. Read on . . . .

Item #4 Would you believe that Items #2 and #3 above quite possibly are going to prove unattractive within a dozen years?

Without the government’s interference and without resorting to fraudulent energy sources such as ethanol (which costs much, much more in pollution start to finish; and significantly more in money –if subsidies are added in - than oil), it appears that the recent discovery of the Natural Law underlying MAN’S creation of oil in the near future will bear huge fruit. Unlike ethanol and other plant-based synfuels subsidized by the government, the cost of foodstuffs like corn will not skyrocket if and when these new technologies are perfected. You’ve heard of things like Castrol’s synthetic oil . . . this is something different, using algae to replace the 300 million year process of creating oil, coal, natural gas, etc. When this becomes reality, then a point will be reached where the price of oil says that keragen and oil in the ground will become far less desirable than letting nature take its course under the watchful eyes of man above ground.

Item #5 Would you believe that new technology called “cellular oil” could make all drilling and oil shale exploration moot questions?

That’s the name of the new technology.

Item #6 Would you believe that someone has a vested interest in our not hearing the terms “watermelon” or “mean greenie” here in America?

Thanks to the American media’s blackout of the Climategate scandal revelations in East Anglia, England, Americans have not been privy to the revolution in thinking going on in Europe over the last thirteen months. Two terms, in particular: “Watermelons” and “Mean Greenies” have come to dominate the Europeans’ new evaluation of the leaders in the environmental movement in general and of the Global Warming alarmists in particular. The term “mean greenie” has been around in England for some time. It describe folks who burn SUVs, deliberately foul fishing nets, destroy ski resorts, drive six inch spikes into trees in hopes of killing lumberjacks using chainsaws, and others who commit crimes against humans in the name of ecology. Lately “mean greenie” has seen a sudden upshot in popular usage in the media all over Europe. But the term “Watermelon” is something special that’s only become common since the Climategate e-mail revelations.

A “watermelon” is a so-called environmentalist who’s “green on the outside and pink to bright red on the inside.” That is, the leaders of much of the environmental movement are now seen in Europe as using the environment for pushing their real but hidden agenda, a heavily socialist or even Marxist agenda. What???? You see it’s like this, all of the Cap and Trade ideas needed (the progressives say) to stop Global Warming in its tracks can only efficiently be executed by a near totalitarian state . . . an all-powerful national government run as part of an even more powerful global government. And what is the basis of all this fraud?

The progressives are pretending that Natural Law no longer works. They want a crisis so they manufacture one with manufactured “science.” They want oil eliminated from the world scene so they pretend that Natural Law has advanced to the level that green-tech is viable, even though it’s not. Right now, the only Natural Law in force capable of providing energy for the whole planet at a practical price and effort is fossil fuel energy. Because of advances in Natural Law (laws we discover and use; NOT laws we make up!) tomorrow, man-made fossil fuel energy appears ready to supplant 300 million year old fossil fuels, and that is semi-green tech created by capitalism and individualism . . . not by a political elite defrauding the people** of the world.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** These are the same people who had DDT banned because of false science (a la Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring) at a time when DDT had dropped malaria deaths (not to mention suffering from a lifetime of episodic three-day fever fits) down to 44,000 annually. The American and United Nations DDT ban has killed more than 70 million souls just to malaria, never mind all the other scourges that DDT avoids, since 1974. Today 2,100,000 people die from malaria every year and tropical nations are finally seeing the light and going back to DDT. If you read the Fabian Society material given above and the words of George Bernard Shaw you see this for what it is: deliberate population control a la eugenics . . . or if you’re a sucker for progressivism, you could call it just plain incompetence . . . and the more you check progressivism the more incompetence you find . . . consider our $113 TRillion in unfunded liabilities via Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid; or the unfunded liabilities created by the state side of Medicaid by the Obamacare Law which will bankrupt all 50 states by 2024 . . . or the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 requiring home lenders to deliberately make known bad loans which was expanded five times (four times just by ACORN President Bill Clinton: once by regulatory edict and three times via legislation) and took us from one “bad” loan in every 404 loans in 1975, to 2005 when 34% of all home loans were bad: thus giving us our sub-prime lending crisis and financial meltdown.

Whether you consider it incompetence or a deliberate attempt to undo capitalism and create chaos so that progressivism can step in offering their neat, sweet big government solutions . . . progressivism is the lethal cancer dominating the American scene and needs to be eradicated posthaste. Thankfully, the voters in November, 2010, saw that clearly.

Read more…

Darwin was (Plenty) Wrong, while Lamarck’s now Resurrected,
"Faith Healing" and What that Means to You

It is a well-known LIE common among the simple-minded that so-called "soft sciences" like sociology, psychology, human-goal attainment, etc. are subject to far greater change than that taking place in the hard sciences. The soft-sciences have long been considered ever-shifting ground compared to “hard science” explanations of how the world works. Of course, that's totally bogus, a lot more change takes place in the hard sciences a lot faster.

Till relatively recently, biology and especially genetics, had been considered a semi-soft science. There were the experiments of Gregor Mendel pubished in 1866; and before that there was Darwin’s book “The Origin of the Species published in 1859, the year before Lincoln’s election and little else had changed. Darwin’s ideas were considered more troubling because they dealt with life capable of movement (animals and apes and men); but Mendel’s was actually relatively hard science that could be replicated by observers. Darwin’s “Natural Selection” (largely sexual selection) misnamed by the press as “Survival of the Fittest” was, after all, only a theory.

In fact, however, biologic theory has also galloped apace. There came in the late 19th and early 20th century discovery of chromosomes and genes and much later DNA. Today biology is considered a much harder science and genetics (with the publishing of the human genome) is by most of the great unwashed all wrapped up into a neat little package called “bio-tech” which definitely sounds like a hard, hard science to the point of virtually being an industrial art so that the term “designer genes” has become much more than a play on words. Rajjpuut, to that says, slow down, Pilgrim, slow down.

It turns out today, however, that in many respects biology, as a hard science, is going back to the drawing board. For one thing, Charles Darwin in his later writings said that he regretted having given nature (meaning “genetics” -- the word genetics didn’t exist in his time) too much credit and to have sorely underestimated the effects of nurture and the environment in shaping life. Wow, the misnomer term “survival of the fittest” in popular thinking certainly sounds like a “struggle,” a battle just to live and then above that a struggle to ensure survival by living long enough and fighting hard enough to overcome others in unrelenting battle and viola! to mate . . . and yet the great Darwin is saying, "I didn’t give the environment enough credit." Think on that, if you want to disappear down Alice in Wonderland's rabbit hole . . . the fittest by genetics isn't necessarily the fittest overall and nurturing "group dynamics" and nature itself play a greater role . . . Rajjpuut has often insisted the greater truth might be "Survival of the Luckiest," surely Darwin didn't mean that?

As it turns out from the more recent ideas placed into mathematical form by a scientist named John Nash (Nobel Prize Winner and the subject of the movie “A Beautiful Mind”) now-a-days extrapolated into biology and even evolutionary theory, cooperation (including nurturing) seems to be every bit as important to survival and reproduction of the individual and the group as fierce competition does. Survival of the most blessed? Most beloved?

And then there is the amazing fact that the scientists (virtually all of them men until the last fifty years) did what women are often accusing men of doing: they thought (figuratively) with their gonads and not with their brains. Or, more precisely, they put the center of control (and dare Rajjpuut say, “intelligence”) in a living cell (the smallest indivisible unit of life itself) in the cell nucleus. As it turns out, that idea from our high school biology classes is totally wrong: the center of cell intelligence is their external membranes where they interact with the world and the cell’s nucleic areas are actually predictably enough “the gonads” of the cell.

More importantly, for the thinking populace, knowing about all these recent changes in the field of biology, we can now examine a little idea published in 1867 which was nothing more or less than highly emphasized “survival of the fittest” extrapolated onto the societies of man himself in a poorly conceived book published in 1867 “Das Kapital” subtitled “a critique of political economics” by Karl Marx with large chunks of editing by Friedrich Engels. Marx said specifically, he intended to make a science of understanding human economy as related to politics and to reveal to the world an understanding of the evolution of political-economic life forms. He began at what he called the “cell” level and worked his way continually broader from there until he was talking about the “struggle for existence” between capital and labor (the business owner and the worker). Marx postulated a survival of the fittest occuring between economic-political systems across the broad sweep of history all around the world, never ceasing. He raked capitalism over the coals and talked about the benefits of socialism which would definitely outlast and defeat capitalism and eventually the final triumphant result of all these political-economic systems battling away over time: tah, dah! creation of the communist utopia where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” had replaced the barbaric animal exploitation and battling which Marx claimed was the fundamental fact propping up all capitalism.

Marx, of course, never paused to see all the co-operation necessary for capitalist entities to grow and prosper, the subject of this brief and poignant essay . . . .

And the enablers of Marx throughout modern history, the Keynesian economists who advocate inflation as a most useful tool for governments (actually, it turns out, only for totalitatian governments) also have overlooked tranquility and cooperation in their understanding of the world of real micro- and real macro-economics . . . put even more briefly . . . .

And summed up into a whole consistent theory here:

Returning from Marxism based upon the ill-conceived "survival of the fittest" notions, it now appears that strange Frenchman our high school teachers used as a strawman in postulating the FACT of EVOLUTION based upon Darwin’s work, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was possibly much more right than Darwin was and he was right almost sixty years before Darwin’s book. His speech of May 11, 1800, at the Paris Natural History Museum set forth Lamarck’s theory of evolution which was every bit as systematic as Darwin’s was but earlier and included soft-evolution as part of the process. When we were kids, the biology profs made fun of Lamarck saying that according to him if you cut off the tails of two mice and bred them . . . of course their offspring would NOT be tailless so Lamarck was an utter fool . . . and continuing on with a lot of such nonsense that, naturally, a close reading of Lamarck shows he never said or meant. Lamarck, like Darwin, made mistakes but he was first, and today's up to the minute science may actually be proving, he was actually better.

Lamarck, coming much earlier than Darwin and living in mostly religiously-orthodox France rather than more worldly Britain as Darwin did, was the object of much hate and derision. Despite all this he stuck by his guns and remained true to evolution. Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological theories. First, it was the environment which gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. Secondly, life is structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make it possible for the organic movements of animals. Thirdly, the whole process is the result most usually of great, great amounts of time. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory. He outlined these theories regarding evolution first in his Floreal lecture of 1800, and then in three later published works:

  • Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants, 1802.
  • Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
  • Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (in seven volumes, 1815-1822)

It now appears that Lamarck was largely correct, that the environment (as Darwin said in the last years of his life -- and which obviously includes nurturing) is a much more prominent cause of evolution than recent thinking led us to believe; and that Darwin was wrong about the role of savage competition as the single largest driving force in shaping evolution, to wit cooperation within a group and even cooperation within the environs themselves play a much greater role than Darwin might ever have conceived. And for those of you who read our first link above (the little "I, Pencil" essay) it definitely appears that Marx totally missed the boat, basing his ideas upon Darwin’s faulty model of evolution and the faulty term “survival of the fittest,” he created a winner-take all model in which only the ends mattered, the end totally justified the dialectical-materialism to come. That is the world that Barack Obama was raised in, courtesy of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham and his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, and his birth-father Barak without a 'c' Hussein Obama, Sr. and that world view (where the glorious state can seriously consider 100% taxes**) is finally and inalterably proven wrong here and now.

For more on the biological background in a format accessible to the layman: try (Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.’s book “The Biology of Belief” which received “The Best Science Book of 2006” award, one of several stimulating works tying cooperative evolution, quantum-physics and psychology together. In a certain sense, we have returned to square one: “it is done unto us, in accordance with our faith.” Of course, now it’s possible to say that faith has a scientific explanation . . . and that evolution is no longer a theory, but a provable fact and they're both part of God’s Design. And, yes, there is clear scientific evidence of the power of faith healing, placebos, and medical miracles of the sort that certainly until now were not considered "hard science." It's all akin to the History Channel showing from translators that the term "Red Sea" was a mis-translation and that it just meant a big river of the time and then going to the river in question and finding tons of ancient military artifacts such as chariots and shields and swords and finding out about an earthquake that took place at the time. Where does faith leave off and science begin? Why not enjoy both? What an amazing world we live in!

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

** as shown here at the link below, in the words of Barak Obama, Sr. but not mentioned in his son's first autobiography "Dreams from My Father" what the real dreams of his father were . . . .
Read more…

Dear Barack Obama,

You once held a job as a senior lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Rajjpuut takes that to mean that the University of Chicago Law School must have the least competent staff in the world because you, Mr. Obama are clearly the greatest Constitution-Trasher and Constitution-Basher in American presidential history. Everything the Constitution is and desires, you are clearly against. You, in fact, clearly despise the very spirit of that document.

Now some of this can be foregiven (the leftists running much of the media would say “can be understood”) merely by calling you a “progressive” which means among other things that you are “someone who believes the Constitution is a very flawed document which you in your far greater wisdom than the founding fathers realize America must clearly ‘progress beyond’ if the country is to be properly served.” You’re the man, Barack! And since “the man” is actually so much wiser than the founding fathers or so much more in tune with the ”Twenty-first Century needs” of the American Republic . . . then, by all means DO transform us. However, do it up front -- like a man -- don’t continually seek to sneak by every contrived change as something done for our own good engineered for our own good by the shadiest of processes. For example, tell us that you, in your greater wisdom, regard a “Republic” as far inferior to a Marxist state. Tell us that you in your greater compassion, realize that the Bill of Rights is totally outdated and you’ve got better stuff to eventually replace it, oh and by the way, you might even tell us what that replacement would be and what pages of “Das Kapital”** it comes from. Tell us, up front, that you regard capitalism as an abomination that enslaves people and exploits them and then describe the full nature of the communistic state you’re planning for us. It’s really the proper and honest thing to do.

You see, Barak, one reason we Americans, silly of us I know, respect the U.S. Constitution, is that the framers of it and the Declaration of Independence were so open in all their actions and all their words . . . so forgive us if, silly us, we’d like you to be 100% open and above board and admit exactly who and what you are and where you plan on dragging us? Your birth-father whatever his other faults might have been, was an open and honest communist. While deploring his beliefs, Rajjpuut admires his integrity. The same canNOT be said for you, Barack.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


** In “Dreams From My Father” our president showed clear reverence for the man (Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.^^) who wrote the 1965 article linked below, “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” The paper extolls, among other communistic virtues, the proper role of “100% taxation.” On the very first page of the essay, Barak, Sr. even lists his own favorite ideology, “scientific socialism” and immediately makes it precisely clear that to him the term scientific socialism means “communism” and nothing else. In the essay, over and over again he makes obvious his preference for 100% public, rather than private, ownership of land, produce and other property saying “We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.” Here is the paper in its entirety:

Notice how often Barak, Sr. openly uses the name “Marx” and the words “tax” and “nationalization” (confiscation of the businesses of foreigners as well as those of non-African Kenyan citizens) in this brief paper. This is the man, his father, whom Barak admired above all others. His hero, instead of George Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Truman or Kennedy, is this man. And the dreams expressed in this paper and other published works are his dreams . . . dreams from the man (who proved too radical even for a socialist Kenya and was kicked out of his job in the office of Economic Development for “not being able to keep his mouth shut” according to Barak’s half sister in “Dreams From My Father”) he admired most in all the world. For God’s sake, if you wanted to know who Hitler was, read “Mein Kampf,” If you want to know who Barak Obama is, read “Dreams From My Father” (where he deliberately omits the words communist and communism and never tells you about the communist environment he was raised in) and then read Barak H. Obama, Sr.’s dreams in this tiny essay. What he says on page 31 (page 8 of 10 in the article) in particular delineates his dream for Kenya, which is his son’s dream for us. The fact that this dream has not changed, and is NOT likely to change, can be surmised from our president’s twice interrupting his own presidential campaigning to visit Kenya and campaign for the communist candidate for Kenya’s president, his cousin Raila Odinga, and even to twice wearing Muslim attire during that Kenyan campaign as well as ordinary suit and tie at other times.

^^ notice Barak, Sr. spelled his first name without a ‘c’ and apparently never changed his name in any fashion during his life. This Barak without a ‘c’ is how his son’s name was spelled at birth. Barak, Jr., unlike his father, has gone under Barak Obama as well as Barak Sotero (taking on the surname of his mother’s second husband) Barry Sotero, Barry Obama, “Barry Soweto,@” and now Barack with a “c” Obama rather than again being open and honest about who he actually is and what he actually believes in and what he plans for America. Just as Barak, Sr.’s name has now been officially westernized (over about 85% of the internet including Wikipedia) to be the same as his son’s with the “c” changing history . . . Barack Obama believes it is by such little and big changes to transform America into communism: the longheld dream of his father for Kenya.

@ there seems to be nothing beyond sheer whim explaining where the name Barry Soweto came from, but Obama used it exclusively during his undergraduate college years

Read more…