Important Traits Required for President

“Character, who one associates with, and one’s core values," are most important in Presidential elections.



American Citizens have and are still suffering, because some previous President’s did not possess the same core values as the majority of Americans. Based on examples, we will attempt to predict what we can expect from Obama.

Should Obama's associations with individuals possessing “less than mainstream-American-values,” be addressed?

If memory serves, didn't the Clinton's receive huge "contributions" from many Chinese during their first 8-year tour in the White House? What did this money buy? We will not discuss here any “personal commissions” taken along the way. The most relevant purchases, to everyday Americans, are larger than typical trade agreements between the US and China, especially large import agreements. Just a few examples of what Chinese trade agreements cost Americans are:

1. Increased cheap imports, they are cheap because the Chinese produce them with inferior materials and “slave-labor,” these include nearly all consumer goods, from toys to medicine and beyond.

2. Hundreds of toy recalls during the Christmas shopping season because of "unsafe construction," and MOST IMPORTANT, recalled because of LEAD paint. Parents remember this. The widespread use of lead based paint appeared to me to be more than an "accident." It was too wide spread, and targeted the long-term health of an exceptionally vulnerable population, our children!

3. There have been numerous recalls of medicine because of the use of "wrong" chemicals. Again, I personally don't think the Chinese considered the chemicals that killed a few US citizens to be "wrong." It is my opinion these "mistakes" are actually calculated and premeditated.

4. There are other related examples; we hear them frequently on newscasts.

Because of his money ties with the Chinese, Clinton pushed for major trade agreements with China, and they have been using these products to harm our citizens. The worst of this is their targeting our children with "lead poisoning."

Answer to the question:

We reviewed what resulted from the Clinton's "associations," so, what "imports" would we be required to suffer from Obama's "associations?” He has current, as reported by national TV newscasts, associations with radical left wing (neo-communists), domestic terrorists, and fanatical racists. Even more telling are his own, “Elitist” comments, and his wife’s comments about never being proud of her country until now, may give a hint.

If “Rev.” Wright and related individuals were "white," and spoke as they do, but substituting "white" for black, there would be an outcry of bigotry and racism, and it is just that. However, such rhetoric coming from African-Americans or other minority groups gets an automatic “Get Out Of Jail” card anytime they use race-baiting language. Reality is any individual, racial minority group, or an ethnic minority group, can be, an often are, prejudiced. Stating this openly as I have done, may result in my arrest by the "Political Correctness Police." If so, would anyone be willing to bail me out of “Political Correctness Jail?”

Obama's recent "past" KNOWN, associations with these people, and his campaign "promise" to meet with the leaders of international terrorist groups, and/or leaders of countries that are known to "support" terrorist groups. What kind of "imports" can we expect should he actually keep his "promises?" How does it go? "It is intuitively obvious to the causal observer..."

Jimmy Carter, Obama's closest political relative, gave away strategic geographical areas (e.g. Panama Canal), and deserted an ally (the Shah of Iran). These and similar actions by Carter have led us, and the entire world, to where we are. Because of his "neo-communist" policies, we are waging a global war on terrorism. Are Obama's "campaign promises" the next step on the road to our final ruin?

Almost everyone knows Hillary's skeletons, including one of her biggest skeleton, the tall one making campaign speeches for her.

If I sound bigoted, rest assured I am not. It’s a terrible shame, that if we are white, we become defensive and “walk as on egg shells” when discussing race or gender. “Political Correctness” labels a white person a “racist” if they openly disagree about anything with a black candidate. Likewise, a man will be labeled sexist if he disagrees with a female candidate about anything. Therefore, I would like to go on the record and say that I would very easily and quickly vote and even campaign for, an African-American for President, just NOT Obama. I wish Gen. C. Powell would run. I'd knock on doors for him until my knuckles bleed! I would also have no problem supporting a woman, I just don't know of any at this time. I only know it would NOT be Hillary.

It is my opinion that "character, who one associates with, and one’s core values," are most important in Presidential elections. This is because the President is the leader of the free world. They are continually tested, and will often have to choose what is best for the country and world, or how a decision affects their "personal ratings."

That is why history and posterity will judge GW Bush very positively. For example, notice when you listen to him speaking, he sounds as confident as if he had a “performance rating” of over 90%. The reason is he has stayed true to his personal values and places the needs of our nation over "personal popularity.” His confident demeanor results from his clear conscience.

By comparison, can anyone seriously believe Clinton or Obama would do the same? We know Obama’s “role model,” Jimmy Carter, can’t say this. He demonstrated once again that he places his personal agenda above the strategic needs of our nation. Carter recently met with the Leader of a Middle East Terrorist Group in open defiance of our State Department and our official national foreign policy.

The terrorist organization he attempted to legitimatize has only one goal: They exist only for the total annihilation of Israel. Carter tried to rationalize his meeting as “opening up communications.” However, he has no official position and is now a private citizen. The real reason for his visit was to “snub” Israel and to embarrass our government. Carter has made it clear to any objective observer his disdain for Jews and for the state of Israel.

What do Fascism, Communism, and Radical Islam have in common?

What do Fascism, Communism, and Radical Islam have in common?

(All quotes are from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia)

I. Fascism

Most people readily recognize the oppressive regimes of Hitler and Mussolini during early and mid 1900s. These are familiar, historical, examples of Fascist Governments. Fascist organizations are sadly, alive a well, throughout the world. A few Fascist groups in the United States of America are: the neo-Nazi or “skinheads;” the Ku Klux Klan (KKK); and the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) for Self-Defense.

Most Fascist groups are typically referred to as being “extreme conservative,” or “extreme right” politically. However, the designation of Fascism being exclusively “extreme conservative” is false. To be false, only one example to the contrary is required, and the group, the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) for Self-Defense is that example. The NBPP is definitely not “extreme conservatives,” they aren’t even “conservatives.” Still, they are a Fascist organization.

What is a Fascist government/organization?

"Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and anti-liberalism (i.e., opposition to political and economic liberalism)."

Mussolini defined Fascism as, "being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism." He wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism:

"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

Only individuals with their own agendas can, or will, deny the horrific treatment of minorities during the rule of the World War II Fascist governments. Millions and millions murdered in an insane effort at total annihilation of the Jews and other minority groups. Thus, it is a fore gone conclusion that one of the chief aims of Fascists organizations is the suppression or destruction of minorities, specifically Jews.

"Fascism is “typically” an extreme “conservative or ‘right’ olitically.” As we have seen, there are exceptions to this simplified categorization. Since most organizations do fit within this simplistic model, for this discussion, we will accept that Fascist organizations are typically to the far right on the political philosophy continuum. We found, “Fascist organizations to be in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism.”

II. Communism/Socialism

We now understand that Communism/Socialism is a natural enemy to Fascism. However, what exactly is Communism/Socialism?

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism.

Communism and Socialism are not exclusively interchangeable. However, they are near enough to allow using them as if they were. Using the two terms interchangeably has historical precedence, “In the late 19th century the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ were often used interchangeably.” All examples are from the Russian Communist form, Leninism-Marxism, because this form is best known.

"In Marxism-Leninism, Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership. But, whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government."

One of the most controversial, and polarizing, characteristics of Communism is its view toward religion.

"Another reason many people fear Communism is that it is usually atheistic. Marx denounced religion as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world...the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people." Communism holds religion as a tool used by society to pacify its members. Communism was seen as an attack on the freedom of religion, and most religious groups are very strongly opposed to Communism."

The primary objective of Communism as clearly stated in 1960 by the then Soviet leader, Khrushchev.

"Khrushchev repeatedly disrupted the proceedings in the United Nations General Assembly in September-October 1960 by pounding his fists on the desk and shouting in Russian. On 29 September 1960, Khrushchev twice interrupted a speech by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. . . . Later Mr. Khrushchev pulled off his right shoe, brandished it at the Philippine delegate on the other side of the hall and banged the shoe on his desk. . . . On another occasion, Khrushchev said in reference to capitalism, "Мы вас похороним!" (My vas pokhoronim!), translated to "We will bury you."

Recognizing the absurdity of his threat, Mr. Khrushchev later attempted to rationalize his previous behavior.

"This phrase, Мы вас похороним!" (My vas pokhoronim!), ambiguous both in the English language and in the Russian language, was interpreted in several ways. Later, he would refer back to the comment and state, "I once got in trouble for saying, 'We will bury you'. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you."

We clearly see that Communism’s primary goal is to destroy the Western Capitalistic way of life and replace it with a one-party government. As in Russia, this new government will “nationalize” all industry. Redistribute “wealth,” abolish all individual rights, except for a small group of ruling “Elitists” called party bosses.

All initiatives for excelling in work will disappear, because everyone (excluding the Elitists party bosses) will earn the same whether you are a high achiever or just merely show up at work. Freedom of Religion will be nonexistent because there will be no approved religion. Throughout the Cold War the Soviets were supporters of all governments the Western Capitalistic countries opposed. Perhaps the most noted case was the Middle East. Where we supported Israel, the Communist Soviets supported all Arab nations and terror groups that tried repeatedly to destroy Israel.

If the ultra-liberals, or “neo-communists,” are successful in achieving their semi-hidden agenda, Mr. Khrushchev’s prediction of us being “buried by our working class,” will come true. Their agenda is only "semi" hidden because it is hidden in plain sight. ery few are looking or care about our individual freedoms. Or, that is what appears obvious on election day. We will have universal medical coverage at last! However, the quality will be terrible. Many health care providers will be unmotivated to spend an extra minute with you, and that extra minute could be the difference of life or death. Why will this be common? They will receive the same income whether you recover or not.

Once wealth redistribution occurs, everyone’s (except the “Elitist” ruling group) quality of life will decrease greatly. The “argument” for complete (exclusive of the “Elitist” ruling group) redistribution of wealth will help no one. After the initial redistribution, no one will be motivated to achieve additional wealth since everyone receives “equal” income. All this will achieve is to make everyone (except the “Elitist” ruling group.) poor.

Everyone (except the “Elitist” ruling group) will finally be “equal.” However, in that scenario, no one (except the “Elitist” ruling group) will have an opportunity to improve their quality of living nor will they be able to improve the future for their children. By now, the question is who is this “Elitist” ruling group?

They are a small group of individuals believing themselves to be more intelligent, and better educated, than the average individual. Further, they assume the average individuals are incapable of thinking for themselves, therefore this “Elitist” group has the responsibility and the right, to make decisions for he masses. Similar “Elitist” groups are found in all Communist countries. After all, Communism is opposed to Democracy and individual rights. Essentially, they have all proven to be governments, “of the few, by the few, for the few.”

III. Fascist Islam

Radical Islamism, or Islamic Terrorists, has tragically become a common reality. There are many branches, or splinter groups, some names are easily recognizable while others are less known.

“Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase, although its usage is widespread throughout the English-speaking world. Bernard Lewis believes that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is apt, because of "the essentially political character which the Islamic religion has had from its very foundation and retains to the present day. An intimate association between religion and politics, between power and cult, marks a principal distinction between Islam and other religions."

Below is a brief discussion of one of the most infamous groups, Al-Qaeda, and some of their admitted reasons (excuses) for fighting a Jihad.

"Many of the violent terrorist groups use the name of Jihad to fight against Christians and Jews. An example is Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, which is also known as 'International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders'. Most militant Islamists oppose Israel's policies, and often its existence."

"In addition, Islamist Jihadis, scholars, and leaders opposed Western society for what they see as immoral secularism. Islamists have claimed that such unrestricted free speech has led to the proliferation of pornography, immorality, secularism, homosexuality, feminism, and many other ideas that Islamists often oppose. . . . bin Laden almost always emphasized the alleged oppression of Muslims by America and Jews when talking about them in his messages."

This topic is so vast and complex we will not discuss it further at this time. However, we have quickly discovered one, and possibly the major motivation for the Jihad “fought” by the Islamic Terrorists, or Radical Islamists. A major objective is the total destruction of the Western Capitalistic governments/cultures, specially the United States of America. In addition, and most important, is the complete and utter annihilation of Israel.

Another goal is to force every country to become a Fundamentalist Islamic State in the likeness of present day Iran. If this becomes a reality, all individual rights and freedoms will disappear. We will then be governed by a very small, “Elitist,” fanatically religious, group.

Islamic Terrorism is essentially a political ideology camouflaged as religion. As such, it does not easily fit on the political philosophy continuum model. However, Islamic Terrorism, or Radical Islamism, must be included with the other political philosophies.

IV. Summary

We have briefly reviewed Communism, Fascism, and Radical Islamism. Typically, the three are considered exclusive and opposed to one another. However, we discovered striking similarities. All three “political philosophies” have several objectives in common. All three have attempted, and continually strive for, the complete destruction of the Western, primarily the United States of America, and all Judeo-Christian Culture.

The Communists tried, for almost three-fourths of a Century, to accomplish this through external force. Since that was unsuccessful, the “neo-communists” are now attempting to take control from within our existing society. They use deceitful tactics, such as appearing to support the “working class,” while secretly plotting to remove all individual rights and freedoms.

The “neo-communists” are also weakening our security by openly admitting and then supporting, illegal immigrants, with our tax dollars. They further weaken our security by recklessly giving away strategic geography (Panama Canal, by Jimmy Carter), and deserting strategically placed friendly partners (Shah of Iran by Jimmy Carter). A final question, do we need another Jimmy Carter? I don’t think so.


Finally, a simplified answer to the question: “What do Fascism, Communism, and Radical Islam have in common?"

They all exist for two inclusive purposes. First, each desires the complete destruction of all Western, Judeo-Christian Culture. After accomplishing the first objective, they want to replace all world governments with an “Elitist” ruling few, and eliminating all individual rights.

21 st Century Communists

We are rapidly moving toward fulfilling Karl Marx's prophecy about how Communism will evolve from Capitalism. Russian Communism, or Lenin-Marxism, resembled true Marxism as much as I resemble my fifth cousin, twice removed. Their only likeness was sharing a common name.

The Communism Marx envisioned would sprout from "within" a Capitalistic Society. Specifically, with the “working class” rebelling. Russia in 1917 did not have a large enough working class to accomplish this. In addition, Russia was not a true Capitalistic Society at that time and still isn’t. However, the United States of America has a middle-class or “working class” that fits the Marxist’s model. So, are there any indications that Marxism or “True Communism” could become a reality?

Yes, this is potentially happening before our eyes. These "neo-Communists," or “21st Century Communists,” labeled politically as ultra-liberals. However, the word “Communism” is never used. Likewise, the related label, “Socialism,” is rarely whispered in public. Yet, it is Socialism in its purest form currently preached by the “far left.” We are getting closer to this becoming a reality during this election year than ever before.

These people are not stupid; on the contrary, they are brilliant. They disguise themselves as being for the “working class,” while privately planning to control our private lives until we ultimately lose all of our individual freedoms. This Socialistic (it does sound better than "Communistic” doesn't it?) society is their eventual goal.

Recent comments by one of the presidential candidates made this perfectly clear. This individual believed their comments were expressed in a "safe, closed environment." That is, where only like-minded people would hear. To paraphrase the comments: “Small-town (aka, working class) people cling to their religion and guns when they become frustrated (bitter) with their lives. And that they do not understand or trust anyone different than themselves.”


What do the comments actually mean in clear English and in “non-political double talk? The comments, especially when placed in context, in supposed secrecy, mean this: "The common man (working class), does not have the capacity to think for themselves, and are simple minded. Therefore, we, the upper echelon party members must do this for the working class simpletons. It is our responsibility, and right, to perform this function because we know what is best for the people. We are more intelligent, better educated, and understand what is in the best interest for everyone.”


Furthermore, “We should not to be questioned! What gives anyone the right to contradict us? No one is intelligent or educated enough to hold differing views. Therefore, anyone that is brash enough to not support our enlightened word must be ignorant bigots! If they weren’t racist, or sexist, they would agree with us.”


“Communist” is by definition “non-Democratic.” That is, where a select few govern and maintain control over the masses without being fairly elected. The prototype for this governmental structure currently exists. “Elitist” Democratic Party members called Super Delegates are not elected during the Primary Election process. These Elitist party members do not have to follow the same standards and guidelines as the “simple minded” elected delegates.


Yes, we are rapidly progressing toward a potential Marxist society. The ultra-liberal politician publically champions the working class while they secretly plot to eliminate individual freedoms. By disguising their secret agenda, 21st Century Communists are deceiving many citizens. They use this voter gullibility to justify their actions. Their fundamental premise that the “working class” needs an Elite group to make important decisions and govern appears true. However, I totally disagree and believe that a well-informed populace can best govern itself!


I am NOT suggesting a return to the Fascist “Communist Hunting” antics of the 1950s. The far right, ultra-conservatives or Fascists, are as dangerous to our individual freedoms as are Communists. I address the dangers of Fascism in a future blog. What I am asking, no, pleading for, is that we all wake up and smell the manure spewing from politician’s mouths. We must stop being blinded by charisma. The highest office in the land, and the most powerful individual in the world, MUST be a person of the highest character! Someone who has been, is, and will always be, a true patriot!