Hump Day Link-Around – Forward!

Graphic via Sultan Knish

All American Blogger: Obama Campaign Slogan “Forward” Has History in Communist Propaganda, Probably Just a Coincidence:

Is it really that hard to believe that even if they powers that be didn’t know about the Eastern European communists love affair with the term “Forward,” that they still wouldn’t be drawn to the word for the same reasons? I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were completely ignorant of how often “forward” has been used by communists as slogans and titles.

I just think these communists used the same thinking as the previous communists:

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.

RS McCain is pithier than usual in his analysis: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky … Obama!

Yes, comrades, they all share the same slogan: “Forward!”

Bruce McQuain makes a brilliant point at  The Conservatory: FORWARD (Or Why Obama May Want To Rethink Using This Slogan)

One has to assume that “forward” is meant to mean to start in a particular direction from the point you now occupy. And that’s where it gets dicey for Obama. What is the point we now occupy from which he’d like to move us “forward”?

Well, shall we make a list to help his campaign?

-Forward to an unemployment rate lower than 8.2% (oh, wait, that was the job of the stimulus.)

-Forward from the first ever credit downgrade (a unique first for a president, no?)

-Forward toward a total debt that is less than our GDP (yeah, that’s not going to happen.)

-Forward toward more government (it does solve all our problems, right? Right?)

-Forward toward more executive “we can’t afford to wait” orders (because now an imperial presidency is a ‘good thing’).

-Forward to more green energy boondoggles (at taxpayers expense, of course.)

Etc, etc –keep reading.

Sultan Knish makes a diagnosis:The Forwardism Disease:

Picking “Forward” as his campaign slogan puts Obama in good company with the likes of Lenin and Mao, and it sounds positive until you stop and realize that it’s meant more as an order than a suggestion. There’s a reason most leftist newspapers with that name add an exclamation mark at the end of it. It’s not a proposal, it’s a command. Lean forward, march forward, live forward and then die forward. We’ve burned the bridges, run up the deficit and trashed the economy so there’s no going back.

An old Soviet era joke told the story of the wife of a Communist leader who upon hearing that her husband had developed a progressive paralysis, clapped her hands and exclaimed that at least it was progressive. That is the underlying message of “Forward” to voters, the country may be paralyzed, but at least it’s a progressive paralysis which leaves us unable to move our heads and stop leaning forward while the Entertainer in Chief croons to us about the wonderful world to come.

The Mental Recession: Shareholder to New York Times: “You’re Willing to Offend the Catholics Because They’re Not Going to Come and Kill You”:

Cliff Kincaid, Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and a shareholder in the company, confronted a group of executives at the Times annual shareholders meeting, accusing them of running the anti-Catholic ad because:

“You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.” 

That’s it in nutshell, is it not?  The media is willing to report negatively about other religions, but refuse to cast a negative shadow on Islam.  And fear is the overwhelming factor.

What the media should be doing is an introspection, asking themselves why they are afraid of offending Muslims. When they find that answer, maybe they can more accurately report on the events involving Islamic extremists.

Here is a larger excerpt from Kincaid’s report:

Speaking at the April 25 New York Times annual meeting, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company, tried to justify the rejection of an ad calling attention to the alleged oppressive nature of the Islamic religion and the “vengeful, hateful and violent teachings” of Islam’s prophet. He said the ad might incite violence in the Middle East.
 At the same time, he justified the placement of an anti-Catholic ad in The New York Times by saying, “We take political ads that we do not agree with. That is the nature of advocacy advertising.” 
Representing Accuracy in Media, a shareholder in the company for the purpose of getting access to the annual meetings, I told Sulzberger, his executives and other Times shareholders, “You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.” 
The full-page, anti-Catholic ad ran on March 9 under the title “It’s time to quit the Catholic Church” and was sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It showed a cartoon of a Catholic Bishop going berserk over a birth control pill and urged Catholics to leave the church.
Here’s a video clip of Pamela Geller talking about the media double standard at BlogCon in Charlotte a couple of weeks ago: VIDEO #BlogCon2012: “David vs. Goliath: Slaying the Legacy Media”.
The Washington Free Beacon: Obama Attacks Right-to-Work States:

President Obama attacked right-to-work states Monday in a speech to the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department Legislative Conference, saying the measures are political and “not about economics.”

“I believe when folks try and take collective bargaining rights away by passing so-called ‘right to work’ laws that might also be called ‘right to work for less’ laws, that’s not about economics,” Obama said. “That’s about politics.”

Independent Sentinel: Obama About to Cede Sovereignty of Our Oceans to Marxist UN:

Under our Constitution, international treaties must be approved by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, but there is reason to believe that Obama plans to implement the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST via Executive Order, flouting the Constitution. This information was buried in a White House report.

Aaron Klein:  President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

The plan was previously a pet project of Secretary of Defence [sic] Leon Panetta, who’s ocean zoning scheme was partnered with a globalist group that also aimed to acquiesce U.S. oceans to UN governance.

Obama’s plan is still in its draft form. It calls for an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy  that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean.

The executive order is to be based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order….Keep Reading.

The Daily Caller: In stump speech, Michelle Obama evicts mother from White House:

This is just so bizarre….

First lady Michelle Obama has figuratively evicted her 74-year-old mother from the White House in an apparent effort to boost her appeal to middle-class voters.

The eviction notice came April 30 when the first lady told fellow Democrats at a fundraiser that she shared their values. “My family, we lived in a little bitty apartment on the South Side of Chicago over my aunt’s house [and] my mom still lives in that house to this day.”

However, the first lady’s mother, Marian Robinson, has lived in the White House since March 2009, when Essence Magazine announced her move from Chicago to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

“She will stay as long as her son-in-law and daughter want her to stay there,” Angela Burt-Murray, the editor of Essence Magazine, said in an April 2009 “Today” show interview.

White House officials have largely kept Robinson out of sight, and she makes relatively few public appearances. One recent exception came on April 9, when she publicly read ”The Rainbow Fish(UGH!) at the 2012 White House Easter Egg Roll.

I’ve waited over 24 hours for an explanation to appear why she would lie about something so easy to refute, but I haven’t seen it, yet.

Bayne confirmed that neither Gov. Mitt Romney nor his presidential campaign is involved with his group’s effort, or with the $10,000 reward for Obama’s college transcripts. The question itself prompted a laughing fit that lasted for roughly 20 seconds. He also insisted that there are no right-wing pressure groups — what he called “shadow groups” and “beltway douche-bag groups” — pulling the strings.

But like right-leaning groups in Washington, D.C., Bayne believes media outlets have given President Obama a free pass on his personal history. And because academic records are an indication of a candidate’s intellect and seriousness, he said, Obama’s college transcripts are fair game,

But for some reason, he mused, no one has been able to find Obama’s. ”But they sure found George Bush’s college transcripts, didn’t they?”

The website advertising Bayne’s $10,000 bounty reads like a direct challenge to the press.

“You’ve failed, media,” it says.

“You’ve had over three years to vet President Barack Obama. Yet in three years in office and over a year of campaigning beforehand, you have either been oddly uninterested or purposefully ignorant of Barack Obama’s educational history.”

Finding the president’s transcripts, the website adds, “would represent more intellectual curiosity about the leader of the free world than the media has demonstrated since Obama won the Democrat primary.”

The statement provides a link to the college transcripts of former President George W. Bush, which The New Yorker published in November 1999, a full year before his election to the presidency.

“Media, your stranglehold on the truth ends NOW. Let the vetting begin,” the website proclaims.

Hmmmmmm —

iOWNTHEWORLD: Dreams From My Real Father:

“Who’s your real Daddy?” is a question that remarkably continues to dog Barack Obama, even as he proceeds into his fourth year as president.

With the release this July of Joel Gilbert’s full-length documentary, “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception,” the mystery deepens regarding who Obama really is.

 “The film provides the first cohesive understanding of Obama’s deep-rooted life journey in socialism, from his childhood to his presidency,” Gilbert told WND.

Gilbert rejects the official story that the Kenyan-born Barack Obama was the president’s father.

Instead, he argues, Frank Marshall Davis, the radical poet and journalist who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was the real, biological and ideological father of Barack Obama.

“I decided to investigate Frank Marshall Davis. His close physical resemblance to Obama was shocking, while Obama little resembled the Kenyan Obama,” Gilbert said. “How could this be?”

The photo shown above was taken by a subscriber in the city of Crookston, MN from the front porch of her suburban home.  No, the men pictured aren’t from the local high school’s J.R.O.T.C sqaud – they are in fact trained soldiers serving in the Minnessota National Guard, Unit 2-136 CAB / B Company. Now, I have never personally been to Crookston (although I’m sure it’s lovely), but I’m relatively confident that they are located on domestic soil, and unless I am missing something, the citizens of Crookston weren’t dealing with any natural disaster at the time this haunting snapshot into the coming police state was taken.

No, what was actually going on that morning was a “training exercise” involving a quiet neighborhood that probably isn’t that different from your own. Being the patriot that she is, Maggie decided it might be a good idea to start asking some questions. Nothing too difficult, mainly just what the hell they were doing walking fully armed down a street regularly used to facilitate the innocent pastimes of all American kids.

Glancing at her briefly one Soldier responded, “Just training Ma’am. Joining up with another patrol at the rally point.”

Not accepting this as a reasonable answer to her inquiry, Magge went on, “Oh, ok. What are you training on the streets of town for exactly?”

At that the young soldier replied, “To be honest ma’am, I don’t know.”

They said it was in response to Obama’s visit.
The APreported:Taliban insurgents attacked a compound housing foreigners in the Afghan capital Wednesday, killing seven people, hours after President Barack Obama made a surprise visit and signed a pact governing the U.S. presence after combat troops withdraw.

Elizabeth Warren is the Harvard law professor running for Senate in Massachusetts as a Democratic populist-progressive champion. But don’t call her “Elizabeth Warren.” Call her “Pinocchio-hontas,” “Chief Full-of-Lies,” “Running Joke” or “Sacaja-whiner.”

Warren has claimed questionable Native American minority status for years to reap career “diversity” benefits. Now, Cherokee leaders, campaign rival GOP Sen. Scott Brown and an army of Twitter detractors have called her out for gaming the racial-preference system. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.

The Boston Herald reported last Friday that Harvard administrators “prominently touted Warren’s Native American background … in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.” When asked for proof of her tribal heritage, Warren’s campaign first denied that she had ever bragged about it. But from 1986 to 1995, Warren listed herself as a minority professor in a professional law school directory.


I don’t have time to give this next one the attention it deserves, but suffice it to say – I agree with Big Fur Hat’s analysis that this is %100 pure, weapons grade  bullcrap.

Pure CRAPOLA – Obama’s “ex-girlfriend’s” Diary:

Vomit-inducing BS ahead:

Genevieve Cook publishes some diary excerpts that she wrote “a long time ago” (and not just before her book deal) about Barack Obama.

The excerpts sound as if she is writing about a vastly deep Albert Schweitzer, and not the pot smoking, basketball playing future community agitator named Barry.

Vanity Fair

Sunday, January 22, 1984
What a startling person Barack is—so strange to voice intimations of my own perceptions—have them heard, responded to so on the sleeve. A sadness, in a way, that we are both so questioning that original bliss is dissipated—but feels really good not to be faltering behind some façade—to not feel that doubt must be silenced and transmuted into distance.

Thursday, January 26
How is he so old already, at the age of 22? I have to recognize (despite play of wry and mocking smile on lips) that I find his thereness very threatening…. Distance, distance, distance, and wariness.

Sunday, February 19
Despite Barack’s having talked of drawing a circle around the tender in him—protecting the ability to feel innocence and springborn—I think he also fights against showing it to others, to me. I really like him more and more—he may worry about posturing and void inside but he is a brimming and integrated character.

As you can imagine, conservative Tweeps had a field day –  Twitchy has the best of the Mockfest: Obama’s steamy love letters and his manufactured history of ‘composite girlfriends’

Feast your eyes on this; beware of the steam emanating off the page!

The letters between McNear and Obama centered around philosophy and literature.

“Remember how I said there’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism — [T.S.] Eliot is of this type,” Obama wrote in one letter to McNear. “Of course, the dichotomy he maintains is reactionary, but it’s due to a deep fatalism, not ignorance. And this fatalism is born out of the relation between fertility and death, which I touched on in my last letter — life feeds on itself. A fatalism I share with the western tradition at times. You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?”


I’m sorry…couldn’t the hipster doofuses back in Chi-town come up with anything better than this drivel?

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!


33 thoughts on “Hump Day Link-Around – Forward!

  1. While I’m not an Obama supporter, the attempt to associate the word “Forward” as some sort of evidence that Obama is a Communist is simply ridiculous and laughable. – (Not) NiceDeb, thanks for this blog post, quite funny!


  2. So you’re back after flunking on the last thread?

    Trolls can never get enough attention, even if that attention shows them up for fools.


  3. I look forward to “Reds and Deception” but the only research really necessary to ascertain the facts of Obama’s paternity is to compare, via Google, the photos of Barack Senior, and Frank Marshall Davis. Obama looks nothing like his putative father.


  4. The Republican Party has a Moderate (Left leaning) Presidential Candidate because of the Tea Party’s inabilities. It seems you guys are proof of such ineptness. I once thought it was possible to reason with you guys, but now realize your isolation from reality is preferred.


  5. Tea Party bashing? Check

    Calling people you cannot intelligently and capably respond to “inept”? Check

    Accuse the other side of being unable to reason, when you have yet to articulate any ‘reasonable’ position yourself? Check

    Gee, tlips, I think the only thing you left out was to call us “ideologues” and “irrational”. Still, when you turn in your daily report to whichever group hired you to be a concern troll, you can tell them that you hit the high points.

    You may now sip your latte with your fellow travellers at the coffee house for the rest of the day without any guilt…you delivered for the cause today.


  6. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere, as you know I seldom throw insults, but find it annoying receiving insults from a cartoon character.

    No. You just insult our intellect by pretending to be something you clearly are not.

    Boo Hoo.

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.


  7. The Republican Party has a Moderate (Left leaning) Presidential Candidate because of the Tea Party’s inabilities.

    Meh. Romney was my guy in 2008, and I’m fine with him this go-round. But your analysis is, as usual, myopic and ignorant. Which candidate did you think was the Tea Party candidate?

    The fact of the matter is that the GOP ran a terrible primary. Heads should roll.


  8. Pingback: Three Reasons You Shouldn’t Vote For Obama | Letting Freedom Ring

  9. geoff, I agree with you that “the GOP ran a terrible primary”, that was my point. The Tea Party basically had four candidates that followed the Tea Party’s platform, and all three were too radical (Santorum, Perry & Bachman) for most Republicans, and one (Cain) was too incompetent. – Romney’s voting record points to him leaning to the Left, for example his mandatory healthcare law, which was the foundation for ObamaCare.


  10. Romney’s voting record points to him leaning to the Left, for example his mandatory healthcare law, which was the foundation for ObamaCare.

    Which you, an average, and non “extreme” Republican support.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but Santorum is not a “tea party” Republican. He’s a socially conservative establishment Republican. Perry and Bachmann had better tea party credentials, but had unrelated weaknesses that prevented them from gaining traction. The country is just as hungry in 2012 for a good tea party candidate as they were in 2010.

    In the meantime, be on notice that I continue to allow you to comment here under false pretenses as a service to my readers – seldom do we see such a perfect, textbook example of a concern troll, folks. Study his tactics and learn how to spot these in the future, here and on other sites.


  11. The country is just as hungry in 2012 for a good tea party candidate as they were in 2010.

    Yes, one solid fiscally conservative candidate. None of the candidates were truly Tea Party candidates – Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are much closer to what the Tea Party is looking for.


  12. Well, he did cozy up to the Russians…explains why he talked to Medvedev like he was his comrade…lol, what a fuckin douche.

    It was like that old Chris Farley skit…where he is such a weeny and kisses the celebs ass.

    “Hey Medvedev, you ever read Trotsky, guys like that? They were pretty cool huh…”


  13. Pingback: American Journalism is Dead: Communist Style Left Wing Propaganda Continues… | Village of the Banned

  14. I didn’t claim that all four candidates were Tea Party members. I said “The Tea Party basically had four candidates that followed the Tea Party’s platform” – That said, Bachman formed the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. Source: – However, geoff said “None of the candidates were truly Tea Party candidates” – Remarkable insight on Right-Wing’s comprehension!


  15. tlips’ missing comment got trapped in the spam filter. I think I freed it, though I don’t see it yet.


  16. Noticed that you finally blocked my comments … thanks! – Surprised it took so long.

    NiceDeb will always tell you when your time is up. You’re probably getting pretty close.


  17. The Tea Party basically had four candidates

    Right, and I said that none of them were truly candidates of the Tea Party. Michelle Bachman is a Tea Party member and was popular with a fraction of Tea Party members, but she didn’t enjoy broad support (obviously).

    Remarkable insight on Right-Wing’s comprehension!

    And the mask slips completely. Now that you’ve fessed up, you’ve probably got a day to make a decent argument as the full-fledged liberal you’ve always been. If you can’t muster better arguments by then, my guess is that ND will have us start deleting your lame comments.


  18. Guys – I’ll let you handle comment moderation. I’m going to be on the road for the next several days – I’ll explain by email. If you could put up a crosspost for me, it would be much appreciated.


  19. All right tlips – it’s all riding on your next comment. You can choose to debate honestly and intelligently, or continue in your current vein and have your comments deleted.

    If you need help in forming an intelligent comment, we’re here for you.


  20. I have been entirely honest with all my posts. Nevertheless, you guys continue to accuse me of being some of left-wing liberal agent (2010 I voted for all GOP), simply because I don’t adhere to your ideology. Furthermore, I have endured insults and until recently have ignored. – My primary goal was to cause people to think on their own and limit attacking the President unjustifiably (although criticize where it is warranted). For example, you never see me defending the President on the EPA regulations.


  21. My primary goal was to cause people to think on their own and limit attacking the President unjustifiably

    Well, all you’ve demonstrated is a reiteration of old, discredited Dem talking points and a complete lack of knowledge of conservatism and the Tea Party. Why don’t you save me some time and just move on?


  22. My primary goal was to cause people to think on their own and limit attacking the President unjustifiably (although criticize where it is warranted).

    I think that remedial grammar courses are in order.

    I also think that since President Downgrade has repeatedly proven that he is a mendacious serial liar, with little regard for the separation of powers, and fundamentally flawed concept of the Constitution, who can barely conceal his contempt and distain for anyone who dares to oppose or criticize him, or take action that he disagrees with, there really is no “attack” that is “unjustifiable”.|

    Finally, you have said nothing to indicate to me that you possess a keen moral insight that would provide you with a basis to authoritatively determine for me, or anyone here, what is and is not “unjustifiable” in terms of criticism of the biggest failure this nation has ever elected to the Oval Office.


  23. I agree my grammar lacks after 14 Hrs. of writing computer code. – It seems radicals often believe in conspiracies theories and unscientific (unproven) concepts. For example, most Tea Party members I know believe Obama wasn’t born in the USA, and many also believe in the Young Earth Creationism (6K to 12K y/o). – My point is that it is nearly impossible to engage in an intelligent debate with individuals that adhere to unfounded beliefs. That said, I will leave you guys to the loathing that you apparently enjoy. Good luck!


  24. Oh….I feel so bad now that a bonifide moderate Republican doesn’t approve of us…I feel so discouraged, I can barely go on.

    Maybe we should change tactics – be less extreme. Be nicer to Obama since he means well, and never lies. He’s basically a good man who wants the best for all of us, after all. It will end well whomever wins in 2012, because we’re all patriots who love our country and our Constitution.

    /sarc off.


  25. It seems radicals often believe in conspiracies theories and unscientific (unproven) concepts. For example, most Tea Party members I know believe Obama wasn’t born in the USA, and many also believe in the Young Earth Creationism (6K to 12K y/o).

    Who exactly do you think believe that you are speaking to? I thought your “point” (aside from the one at the top of your head) was that we were making “unjustifiable” attacks on President Downgrade. But now we believe in “unscientific (unproven) concepts”? (BTW, you do realize that something like say…evolution…remains a THEORY prescisely because it is unproven? And that as such, your implication that something is “unscientific” because it IS unproven is blown all to hell, right?)

    – My point is that it is nearly impossible to engage in an intelligent debate with individuals that adhere to unfounded beliefs. That said, I will leave you guys to the loathing that you apparently enjoy. Good luck!

    You didn’t come seeking a debate. You came to scold, and to pretend at a moral and intellectual superority that you still have yet to prove. You claim to be a “conservative”, yet you completely failed to engage Geoff when he attempted to discuss the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism, and you impugned the Christianity of your host, and yet brought no scripture to support your criticism.

    The world doesn’t need another pretender, and the presumption of intellectual and moral superiority without a demonstrated foundation in either one is tired and trite. It also demonstrates a complete lack of the gravitas you appear to claim. Go lecture some grade school kids. They might be fooled by your pose.


  26. Poor guy. First case I’d ever heard of where computer programming corrupted someone’s grammar. Probably explains the random use of hyphens as well.

    most Tea Party members I know…

    I love it when somebody tries to lecture somebody else based on their limited anecdotal experiences.

    it is nearly impossible to engage in an intelligent debate with individuals that adhere to unfounded beliefs.

    Cruel, cruel irony.


  27. Wow. What a backhanded way to discount Christianity, and Judeism, and, as far as that goes, Islam. What an up-front guy!

    But on to other things in the post: I wonder which one of the genii Duh-1 has verbalizing everything not on his teleprompter came up with the idea of creating his “former girlfriend”? She’s about as believable as a certain S. Fluke was a couple of months ago, except no one seems to know who she is, where she came from or what she does now (probably an OWS “leader”). In other words, she has no substance, just like everything about this president.

    And “Forward”? Give me a break! He’s been running this country bass-ackwards at 200 mph since the day he lied the oath of office to “uphold the Constitution.” How does he plan on reversing an engine he’s got going at warp speed into oblivion? I can hear Scotty now: “Captain! She won’t take much more before she explodes!”


  28. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s