Barrack Obama scares the hell out of me and this has nothing to do with race in any way, shape or form! He scares me because I honestly believe that he has sold his soul to the devil in order to achieve his goals.  The more I look into his past and the more I see and observe his present behavior, the more it convinces me of this.

In the beginning,  I too, like many others was taken in with his charm, his articulate rhetoric and his beautiful family. For a moment I thought he was the real deal. That this was the man who could actually make a difference for America and the change he spoke about would actually bring about the change we all would like to see in our government. I saw a refreshing face, an outsider, a new type of politician.

I then thought to myself that I should look into this “wonderful” man with all the refreshing new ideas and burst of “positive” energy because while the “main stream” media was building him up, the other side was tearing him down. But then I was faced with the dilemma of where I was going to find information that I could rely on and make an informed decision.

Being an amateur genealogist I started looking into Barrack Obama by applying the same principles you would when looking into your own family history. You start with what you know and work backwards. I knew that he was a Senator from Illinois and prior to that he was a State Senator and Community Organizer from the Southside of Chicago, all admirable positions. What I did not know was who the people were that had some of the greatest influences in his life.

The one name that caught my attention more than anyone else was Saul Alinsky. I knew that Mr. Alinsky was an extreme radical and agitator but what I did not know was how much of an influence his writings had on Mr. Obama. I had never read any of Mr. Alinsky’s books until his name kept being brought up over and over again in reference to Obama. I then decided to read Alinsky’s book and the first one I read was an eye opener. It was the Rules for Radicals, (A Primer for Realistic Radicals). A book dedicated to Lucifer, “the very first radical…”

Alinsky, who is a confirmed atheist, believed that the here and now is all there is, and on the last page of a 1972 Playboy Interview with Saul D. Alinsky, he said the following:

ALINSKY: Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not "Is there life after death?" but "Is there life after birth?" I don't know whether there's anything after this or not. I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other and I don't think anybody else has either. But I do know that man's obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let's say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.

PLAYBOY: Why?

ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.

PLAYBOY: Why them?

ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

This to me was eye-opening and revealing especially as I continued to follow Barrack and Michele’s speeches and political philosophies. One such instance was during the Democratic National Convention, Michele Obama was speaking and about six and a half minutes into her speech she said the following: “…and Barrack stood up that day and he spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about the world as it is and the world as it should be….”  This came right out of Alinsky’s book, Here's an excerpt from Chapter 2, Rules for Radicals:

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive -- but real -- allies of the Haves...The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

This was the beginning of my turning point in thinking that Obama was a new and refreshing change in the politics as usual. Then came his trip to Europe, his acceptance speech at Invesco Field, the make believe Presidential Seal on the podiums he spoke from and all the pretentious back drops surrounding all of his appearances. The “main stream” media did not help by stroking his ego and making him feel that he was a messiah. So as I continued to search the teachings of Alinsky I saw this passage in Rules for Radicals: "The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which a man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator', to play God." 

True to form it seemed that Mr. Obama was taking the teachings of his master to heart. In fact this led to Saul Alinsky’s son to write in a little publicized letter to the Boston Globe where he stated the following:

"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness," the author continued. "When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

"I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008," the author said. "It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

The person who signed the letter, Lee David Alinsky, is indeed the son of the late radical.

Now, even though Barrack Obama has refused to publicly acknowledge the teachings of Alinsky in public he has stated that the community organizing he did in Chicago was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School."

As I continue reading more of Alinsky’s books the more I see his philosophies being applied by Senator Obama and the more I am convinced that he has sold his soul to the Devil , since one of the Devil’s best disciple, Saul Alinsky,  is his teacher and  has taught him well.

Once upon a time long, long ago before the advent of the internet there was a man know as “the most trusted man in America.”  He was trusted because he brought into our homes a truly “fair and balanced” analysis of what was happening in the world.

It was long after he left the stage that people found out that he actually leaned to the left. Yet his journalistic professionalism was above his own political views.

That man was none other than Walter Cronkite.

Fast forward  and what is it that we find in today’s media? It is hardly objective, in fact you can compare the main stream media, cable news media and the main stream print media to the trashy tabloids that you find at the checkout stands in grocery stores, convenience stores and drug stores.

One only has to look as to what is happening in today’s political atmosphere, as recently as the Charlie Gibson interviews with Sarah Palin. What a double standard the news media has when it comes to anyone whose views do not align with theirs. Want some proof, click on to the link below where an ex-Clinton aide claims that the media is tougher on Palin. You will find this article a very interesting read.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main4442492.shtml.

Then we have Peter Jennings back in 2004 treating Mrs. John Edwards with kid gloves. Here is an excerpt of his remarks: "So much is being made all the time about how real you are...And how refreshing it is to have a mother of young children out there in a very public way." Now contrast that with how Palin is being treated and how she is being damned for accepting the Vice Presidential nomination in view of the fact that she has children at home and one with special needs.

It is so bad and so obvious that we have UPI attacking ABC of bias! See Warner Todd Huston’s article below:

UPI Charges ABC With Biased 'Double Standard' in Palin Interview

By Warner Todd Huston | September 13, 2008 - 08:46

Dontcha ya hate it when Old Media outlets beat up on other Old Media outlets? (Well, maybe you don't hate it, exactly) It's like Old Media on Old Media violence. In this case we have the United Press International (UPI), struggling lesser known news wire service, giving the big smack-a-roo to ABC. UPI is warning that Charlie Gibson's gruff handling of Governor Sarah Palin may "backfire," and that the interview revealed a "double standard" of harsh treatment for Republicans compared to the softballs they've thrown to Democrats in past interviews.

Who can disagree with that assessment?

UPI's Martin Sieff's one sentence assessment of the interview seems to be the general consensus of all dispassionate observers. "There were no surprises, no knockout zingers," Sieff says, "but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee."

Click on this link, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/12/2007-interview-abc-s-gibson-greeted-obama-softballs and compare his interview with Obama and the interview with Palin. Now answer this question: Who do you think the media is in the tank for?

The saddest part of all this is that a lot of the American public relies on the main-stream media to help make up their minds unfortunately the media is no longer “fair and balanced”.