It is extremely funny to me that the people keeping Gov. Palin in the media are WOMEN who hate her. They just can't let it go. Anonymous leaks ala National Enquirer style actually make national news night after night after night?
We get it already. The messiah won the election. Now why is Gov. Palin still a thorn in the side of so many people? 1) She is a very successful woman who came 'this close' to the Presidency and the left and the crazy left leaning Republicans have to make sure she will not be a threat in 2012. 2) Pro-abortionists hate her PRO LIFE values. 3) Weak minded liberal leaning (no matter what party) women hate ALL she stands for. They just can't handle her. They knock her as 'not woman enough' and 'not a real feminist' because she doesn't support the killing of LIFE.
The BIGGEST detractors of Palin are women. I can't say that enough. Women who think they are enlightened, intellectual, intelligent, progressive....she made it and they didn't. Women are the worst at supporting women. They always have been and they always will be. We aren't any further ahead in our women's rights issues than we were 100 years ago. Sure, we have the vote, but what good is it? Women are going to bring each other down no matter what.
The left leaning women will only be happy when the women THEY approve of hits the scene. I can guarantee this. She will not represent 50% of the women in the US.
one of my “sisters” is Camille Paglia (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/11/12/palin/index1.html):
“I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.
“As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee — what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.”
As Dennis Miller says: "Women are mean to other women." and reminds us of how Katie 'softball' Couric was treated on the scene. Too bad she had to dish out to another woman what had been done to her.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
THANK YOU VETERANS
Dear Veterans: Thank you for fighting for freedom. Thank you for fighting for us. Thank you for doing what most of us would not be willing to do. I am grateful to those in my family who HONORABLY served (my Dad and his 3 brothers, my Grandfather, my Great Uncle, my stepfather)) their country. We take for granted the freedoms we have because others have fought for that right. We dishonor their sacrifice when we do not honor them.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Why are liberals afraid of Governor Palin?
The election is over. The angry liberal candidate won. So why does the liberal left continue to go after Governor Palin? Detractors of Palin, Rep. and Dem. alike, like to blame Palin for McCain's election loss. They forget one thing. McCain lost because he was not REPUBLICAN enough. Palin was chosen because she is PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN, PRO-DRILL, PR0-TAX CUTS. In a word, REPUBLICAN.
Get this 'factual' (snort...said with heavy sarcasm) report from Newsweek:
"Apparently, according to Newsweek, Gov. Palin refused to appear onstage with a New Hampshire Senator and a New Hampshire Senate candidate because they are pro-choice. (H/T).
Except that the Senator in question, John Sununu, is pro-life.And except that the other candidate wasn't running for the Senate (Newsweek may have missed this, but Sununu was up for re-election, so there were not two Republicans running for the job this year).
And except that she did do public appearances with both men.
And except that she did make public appearances with other pro-choicers.
But you know, other than getting basically every possible fact wrong, Newsweek's doing OK there.(redstate.com)
Michael Eisenstadt, supposed McCain aide, who has been 'leaking' negative info about Governor Palin an supposedly confessed on his own blog is a HOAX. The man is notorious for creating drama and 'hoax' blogs to create chaotic situations. This time he decided to bring Palin down (note: the LEFT HATES HER).
The slurs against Gov. Palin are ridiculous and not even worth going into on this blog. None of them made sense from the beginning and just so the how looney the left (and left leaning 'republican's) really are.
Get this 'factual' (snort...said with heavy sarcasm) report from Newsweek:
"Apparently, according to Newsweek, Gov. Palin refused to appear onstage with a New Hampshire Senator and a New Hampshire Senate candidate because they are pro-choice. (H/T).
Except that the Senator in question, John Sununu, is pro-life.And except that the other candidate wasn't running for the Senate (Newsweek may have missed this, but Sununu was up for re-election, so there were not two Republicans running for the job this year).
And except that she did do public appearances with both men.
And except that she did make public appearances with other pro-choicers.
But you know, other than getting basically every possible fact wrong, Newsweek's doing OK there.(redstate.com)
Michael Eisenstadt, supposed McCain aide, who has been 'leaking' negative info about Governor Palin an supposedly confessed on his own blog is a HOAX. The man is notorious for creating drama and 'hoax' blogs to create chaotic situations. This time he decided to bring Palin down (note: the LEFT HATES HER).
The slurs against Gov. Palin are ridiculous and not even worth going into on this blog. None of them made sense from the beginning and just so the how looney the left (and left leaning 'republican's) really are.
Typical Libera "Moral Equivalency"
Ohio state snooper Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the state Department of Job and Family Services is getting a FREE PASS for her 'unauthorized' (so Obama says) snooping of Joe the Plumber's personal life and records.
I know it is an oxymoron to use Liberal and Moral in the same sentence, but didn't you know it is ALL OK if the Dems do it. Censorship? OK Illegally look at your personal life? OK Call Bush a terrorist? OK Take your gun and Second Amendment rights? OK Infanticide? OK Pay for your neighbor's abortion? OK Get out of Gitmo FREE? OK
Don't worry..on this anniversary of Kristallnacht..The Night of Broken Glass 1938 Germany. Large scale, coordinated attack against the Jews. In that 24 hour period, 200 synagogues were destroyed in Germany, thousands of Jewish homes and businesses were raided and ransacked and 20,000-30,000 Jews were arrested and put in concentration camps. It was the beginning of the Holocaust.
In the 1930's, thousands of Americans were supportive of Hitler, even having a Nazi Bund rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, just as today thousands of Americans are supportive of Obama.
Why do I care? Lest we NEVER forget. Once freedoms are taken they can never been given back. Little by little we willingly vilify the 'enemy' until no one cares if something bad happens to them......Don't think it can't be YOU.
I know it is an oxymoron to use Liberal and Moral in the same sentence, but didn't you know it is ALL OK if the Dems do it. Censorship? OK Illegally look at your personal life? OK Call Bush a terrorist? OK Take your gun and Second Amendment rights? OK Infanticide? OK Pay for your neighbor's abortion? OK Get out of Gitmo FREE? OK
Don't worry..on this anniversary of Kristallnacht..The Night of Broken Glass 1938 Germany. Large scale, coordinated attack against the Jews. In that 24 hour period, 200 synagogues were destroyed in Germany, thousands of Jewish homes and businesses were raided and ransacked and 20,000-30,000 Jews were arrested and put in concentration camps. It was the beginning of the Holocaust.
In the 1930's, thousands of Americans were supportive of Hitler, even having a Nazi Bund rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, just as today thousands of Americans are supportive of Obama.
Why do I care? Lest we NEVER forget. Once freedoms are taken they can never been given back. Little by little we willingly vilify the 'enemy' until no one cares if something bad happens to them......Don't think it can't be YOU.
Stealing an election MN style
I had the priviledge of being a poll worker for the 2008 election. AZ is the ONLY state in the Union that requires voters to be an US citizen. We require PHOTO ID and if you don't have photo ID then you MUST present 2 forms of ID with your current address and it HAS TO MATCH what we have in the voter registration book.
Once we showed for work we absolutely could not leave. We couldn't leave in the evening until all ballots were counted, all unmarked ballots were accounted for, all provisional and conditional ballots were accounted for and all 'scratched' ballots were accounted for. We knew exactly how many ballots we started with and how many we ended with. All votes were counted and uploaded BEFORE we left for the evening and we knew exactly who won in our precinct, what ballot measures won in our precinct, etc.
People went through several checks before they cast their vote. It was very methodical and STILL people tried to cheat. Amazing. Yet, we know that cheaters DID vote more than once because even our system isn't perfect.
We still caught people trying to beat the system and vote twice, vote with another person's ID, people who early voted and tried to vote again, and people whose early ballot had been voted and we KNEW these people had been the victims of a fraud.....
Now, in other states, we found out how EASY it is to create voter fraud. Some states don't require 2 IDs or even photo ID. In some states, once the proper 'electoral votes' are met for a particular candidate then no other ballots are counted! Disgraceful.
The fact that people are 'finding' ballots in cars and other areas in MN is OUTRAGEOUS. FRAUD pure and simple. ACORN figured out how to steal elections in key states and used the state's own ineffective system to STEAL this election. That is what is now happening in MN.
Now, this is what occurred to me as I judged signatures for this election....WHY would a person NOT have a photo ID? A proper ID is needed for a bank, welfare checks and food stamps, getting their beer and cigs, going to a bar, etc. These people would definitely have ID for those occasions so why didn't they conveniently have one to vote??? The easiest scam in the world. Just produce 2 bills with an address and guess what? YOU vote! Say you are in foreclosure or in a move transition and YOU VOTE.
When ACORN says Mickey Mouse really couldn't vote...don't you believe it......betcha he did!
Once we showed for work we absolutely could not leave. We couldn't leave in the evening until all ballots were counted, all unmarked ballots were accounted for, all provisional and conditional ballots were accounted for and all 'scratched' ballots were accounted for. We knew exactly how many ballots we started with and how many we ended with. All votes were counted and uploaded BEFORE we left for the evening and we knew exactly who won in our precinct, what ballot measures won in our precinct, etc.
People went through several checks before they cast their vote. It was very methodical and STILL people tried to cheat. Amazing. Yet, we know that cheaters DID vote more than once because even our system isn't perfect.
We still caught people trying to beat the system and vote twice, vote with another person's ID, people who early voted and tried to vote again, and people whose early ballot had been voted and we KNEW these people had been the victims of a fraud.....
Now, in other states, we found out how EASY it is to create voter fraud. Some states don't require 2 IDs or even photo ID. In some states, once the proper 'electoral votes' are met for a particular candidate then no other ballots are counted! Disgraceful.
The fact that people are 'finding' ballots in cars and other areas in MN is OUTRAGEOUS. FRAUD pure and simple. ACORN figured out how to steal elections in key states and used the state's own ineffective system to STEAL this election. That is what is now happening in MN.
Now, this is what occurred to me as I judged signatures for this election....WHY would a person NOT have a photo ID? A proper ID is needed for a bank, welfare checks and food stamps, getting their beer and cigs, going to a bar, etc. These people would definitely have ID for those occasions so why didn't they conveniently have one to vote??? The easiest scam in the world. Just produce 2 bills with an address and guess what? YOU vote! Say you are in foreclosure or in a move transition and YOU VOTE.
When ACORN says Mickey Mouse really couldn't vote...don't you believe it......betcha he did!
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama youth MUST serve and betcha there will be a draft!
Dear youth who voted for Obama.....be careful what you wish for.....you get mandatory service and guess what? The draft will NOT be far behind for male and female since that is what he said early on......get ready indoctrination change is coming! Oh, I forgot, some of you lost ones have been indoctrinated since birth.....
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Media determined to bury Palin and her popularity
A Few Things You'd Have to Believe to Believe What McCain Staffers Say About Sarah Palin
Let's add some context to the Carl Cameron and Newsweek airing of rumors from anonymous McCain/Palin staffers. The most controversial claims, all of which come without names attached because the purveyors are apparently determined to stick around to undermine future campaigns and candidates, are that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent as opposed to a country, and that she didn't know who the members of NAFTA were.
Let's start with NAFTA. If folks want to believe Gov. Sarah Palin did not know even the most basic facts about NAFTA, they have to believe a couple other improbable things.
Before she became governor, Palin's husband Todd's commercial fishing business on Bristol Bay accounted a decent percentage of the family's income. The couple reported about $46,000 from the business last year on a license Todd purchased from his grandfather in the 1970s. He has been a lifelong commercial fisherman and she has often been his partner both in the business and literally on the boat.
Surely while the two were working in the commercial salmon fishing industry in post-NAFTA Alaska, they would not have missed the effect farmed-salmon imports from Canada had on the industry, causing the number of fisherman, the size of the harvest, and the value of permits to go down significantly in Alaska. According to a 2003 AP article:
"This loss of equity, which for self-employed fishermen is equivalent to retirement accounts, will continue to reverberate throughout the Alaska economy in coming years," Gilbertsen said.
The economic losses have ricocheted through coastal communities as fewer fishermen have caused a decline in both crews and shore-based services. Monthly employment in the state's seafood processing industry fell from 11,200 in 1992 to 7,400 in 2002.
Chile and Canada are the two major suppliers to the U.S. market of farm-raised salmon. The two countries accounted for 94 percent of the Atlantic pen-reared salmon, valued at $818 million.
Canada is a partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which removed certain trade barriers, and Chile has fewer environmental regulations and cheap labor, the analysis showed.
"The fact that Canada is a NAFTA partner, and that the U.S. has just approved a bilateral free trade agreement with Chile, would seem to indicate that these imports will continue to grow," Gilbertsen said.
So, let's say for argument's sake the couple missed that bit of information. They would also have had to miss the fact that in 2002, the federal government decided to make commercial salmon fisherman on Alaska's Bristol Bay eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement due to the impact Canada's farmed-salmon had on the industry. From a 2002 AP brief:
The U.S. Department of Labor has certified about 200 commercial salmon fishermen in the Bristol Bay area as eligible to apply for transitional adjustment assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The certifications cover Sept. 5, 2001, to Nov. 25, 2004. Workers laid off or reduced to part-time work during that time may be eligible for extra benefits and services.
The Labor Department found that major customers for Bristol Bay salmon increased their reliance on imports of salmon from Canada, adversely affecting fishermen.
NAFTA authorizes assistance to cover workers affected because of increased imports from Mexico or Canada or shifts in production to those countries.
After they are certified as eligible, workers may apply for benefits at a state employment service office. They may receive retraining services, career counseling, job placement assistance and income support.
On the flip side of the coin, Canada is within the top three of Alaska's trading partners, a position it moved into in the increased trade years after NAFTA was passed. It's a huge market for seafood and metals mined in Alaska.
Disgruntled McCain staffers not only require you to believe that the chief executive of the state of Alaska knew nothing about one of her state's most important trading partners, but that she was equally oblivious to the economic winds affecting the industry that provided her very own livelihood. Perhaps they should head to the NYT next, which has a history of employing anyone who has a penchant for writing slam books about Republicans.
This accusation didn't pass the smell test to begin with, but because McCain staffers are requiring us to defend our popular former vice presidential nominee against NYT-like attacks, there are some facts to consider.
Posted by Mary Katharine Ham
Let's add some context to the Carl Cameron and Newsweek airing of rumors from anonymous McCain/Palin staffers. The most controversial claims, all of which come without names attached because the purveyors are apparently determined to stick around to undermine future campaigns and candidates, are that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent as opposed to a country, and that she didn't know who the members of NAFTA were.
Let's start with NAFTA. If folks want to believe Gov. Sarah Palin did not know even the most basic facts about NAFTA, they have to believe a couple other improbable things.
Before she became governor, Palin's husband Todd's commercial fishing business on Bristol Bay accounted a decent percentage of the family's income. The couple reported about $46,000 from the business last year on a license Todd purchased from his grandfather in the 1970s. He has been a lifelong commercial fisherman and she has often been his partner both in the business and literally on the boat.
Surely while the two were working in the commercial salmon fishing industry in post-NAFTA Alaska, they would not have missed the effect farmed-salmon imports from Canada had on the industry, causing the number of fisherman, the size of the harvest, and the value of permits to go down significantly in Alaska. According to a 2003 AP article:
"This loss of equity, which for self-employed fishermen is equivalent to retirement accounts, will continue to reverberate throughout the Alaska economy in coming years," Gilbertsen said.
The economic losses have ricocheted through coastal communities as fewer fishermen have caused a decline in both crews and shore-based services. Monthly employment in the state's seafood processing industry fell from 11,200 in 1992 to 7,400 in 2002.
Chile and Canada are the two major suppliers to the U.S. market of farm-raised salmon. The two countries accounted for 94 percent of the Atlantic pen-reared salmon, valued at $818 million.
Canada is a partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which removed certain trade barriers, and Chile has fewer environmental regulations and cheap labor, the analysis showed.
"The fact that Canada is a NAFTA partner, and that the U.S. has just approved a bilateral free trade agreement with Chile, would seem to indicate that these imports will continue to grow," Gilbertsen said.
So, let's say for argument's sake the couple missed that bit of information. They would also have had to miss the fact that in 2002, the federal government decided to make commercial salmon fisherman on Alaska's Bristol Bay eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement due to the impact Canada's farmed-salmon had on the industry. From a 2002 AP brief:
The U.S. Department of Labor has certified about 200 commercial salmon fishermen in the Bristol Bay area as eligible to apply for transitional adjustment assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The certifications cover Sept. 5, 2001, to Nov. 25, 2004. Workers laid off or reduced to part-time work during that time may be eligible for extra benefits and services.
The Labor Department found that major customers for Bristol Bay salmon increased their reliance on imports of salmon from Canada, adversely affecting fishermen.
NAFTA authorizes assistance to cover workers affected because of increased imports from Mexico or Canada or shifts in production to those countries.
After they are certified as eligible, workers may apply for benefits at a state employment service office. They may receive retraining services, career counseling, job placement assistance and income support.
On the flip side of the coin, Canada is within the top three of Alaska's trading partners, a position it moved into in the increased trade years after NAFTA was passed. It's a huge market for seafood and metals mined in Alaska.
Disgruntled McCain staffers not only require you to believe that the chief executive of the state of Alaska knew nothing about one of her state's most important trading partners, but that she was equally oblivious to the economic winds affecting the industry that provided her very own livelihood. Perhaps they should head to the NYT next, which has a history of employing anyone who has a penchant for writing slam books about Republicans.
This accusation didn't pass the smell test to begin with, but because McCain staffers are requiring us to defend our popular former vice presidential nominee against NYT-like attacks, there are some facts to consider.
Posted by Mary Katharine Ham
Markets continue to react to Obama's Omerica
Another day of crashing markets. It is in a total freefall. Corporations, businesses, nations were not happy about an Obama Omerica. Individuals may be happy, but the markets KNOW what an Obama Presidency means.....another Great Depression as he spends us into the ground and taxes the *&^% out of us all. We now have a President:
1) Whose best friends believe that everyone who’s poor should organize to get something from the system
2) Whose best friends hate this country, hate capitalism, hate the military, hate Christianity and Judism
3) Who’s going to take away money from everyone working, particularly those who have their own businesses and employ MOST of the working people in the country, and give it to everyone not working, many of whom refuse to work
4) Who’s going to reduce military spending by 25% - who’s going to halt the missile defense system which has begun to show a great deal of success
5) Who’s charitable deductions last year were half of what we gave (and we only make 40,000.00 a year!)
6) Who believes government can run a medical system without medical shortages (see Canada, England, France)
7) Who plans European-style socialism without realizing that that system is about to crash because of no-growth population
8)Who writes about an beloved aunt, but never checks to see how she’s doing and doesn’t even know she’s an illegal alien in the US
9) Who has half brother living in Kenya who is extremely poor
10) Who has never supported the school they named for him in Kenya
11) Who has operatives who broken into court records and government databases to dig up dirt on political opponents and people who dared ask him a question that caused problems
12) Who plans to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that conservatives have NO PLACE to find out the truth.
13) Who has promised NARAL and NOW that he will pass the abortion act making every abortion any place, any time, for any reason, legal - rolling back 30 years of work to protect the unborn. Hello to partial birth abortions (partially deliver, drill hole in head, suck out brains, deliver dead baby). Hello to babies who survive abortions left to die alone in closets.
14) A civilian force - for what reason? Will they knock on your door one of these days?
1) Whose best friends believe that everyone who’s poor should organize to get something from the system
2) Whose best friends hate this country, hate capitalism, hate the military, hate Christianity and Judism
3) Who’s going to take away money from everyone working, particularly those who have their own businesses and employ MOST of the working people in the country, and give it to everyone not working, many of whom refuse to work
4) Who’s going to reduce military spending by 25% - who’s going to halt the missile defense system which has begun to show a great deal of success
5) Who’s charitable deductions last year were half of what we gave (and we only make 40,000.00 a year!)
6) Who believes government can run a medical system without medical shortages (see Canada, England, France)
7) Who plans European-style socialism without realizing that that system is about to crash because of no-growth population
8)Who writes about an beloved aunt, but never checks to see how she’s doing and doesn’t even know she’s an illegal alien in the US
9) Who has half brother living in Kenya who is extremely poor
10) Who has never supported the school they named for him in Kenya
11) Who has operatives who broken into court records and government databases to dig up dirt on political opponents and people who dared ask him a question that caused problems
12) Who plans to bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that conservatives have NO PLACE to find out the truth.
13) Who has promised NARAL and NOW that he will pass the abortion act making every abortion any place, any time, for any reason, legal - rolling back 30 years of work to protect the unborn. Hello to partial birth abortions (partially deliver, drill hole in head, suck out brains, deliver dead baby). Hello to babies who survive abortions left to die alone in closets.
14) A civilian force - for what reason? Will they knock on your door one of these days?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Stock Market reels in shock of an Omerica!
There is no greater cause and effect on what the free market thinks of a president then the day after an election
in 2004 up flat: 0%
in 1996 ip 100pts about 2%
in 1992 down 20pts about 1%
in 1988 flat
in 1984 up 14pts or about 1.5%
in 1980 flat.
This is the worse reaction to an election by the markets in the last 30 years. Most day’s after is like business as usally. No sell offs. Sometimes you get a small rally. Today was an massive in your face NO THANK YOU form the market. HISTORIC reaction. Not seen ever.
in 2004 up flat: 0%
in 1996 ip 100pts about 2%
in 1992 down 20pts about 1%
in 1988 flat
in 1984 up 14pts or about 1.5%
in 1980 flat.
This is the worse reaction to an election by the markets in the last 30 years. Most day’s after is like business as usally. No sell offs. Sometimes you get a small rally. Today was an massive in your face NO THANK YOU form the market. HISTORIC reaction. Not seen ever.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
A new era...Omerica
Barack Hussein Obama bought, paid for, and stole the election of President of the US. As an American I will support my President because it is the patriotic thing to do. I do not share his lack of values and I abhor his lack of character. He was very clear tonight that the American people should not expect much from him until his NEXT term of President and that says a lot about him. Just words...just speeches....just a bunch of crap that truly less than 1/2 the American people bought when you consider that:
1) he paid $650 million for his Presidency in a time when that sure would put a lot of food on Americans tables. he didn't feel the need to 'share the wealth'....selfish?
2) he and his supporters used fraud, deception, corruption, and thug tactics to steal votes......Black Panther brute squads tonight!
3) we know MILLIONS of votes were fraudulent
4) if people didn't hate Bush so much he wouldn't have had a prayer
5) if the media hadn't been in the pocket for him he wouldn't have had a prayer
5) if he didn't accept illegal contributions from foreigners he wouldn't have had a prayer
6) in an unorganized campaign by McCain Obama could still not seal the deal with most of the American population when he had EVERYTHING going for him to win.....
7) he personally kept racism alive and active in this campaign....not even the decendent of an american black slave, but he used the 'race card' continually.... HE is the racist....his supporters are RACIST
All of that says a lot about Obama and just like Dems like to think the Presidency was stolen from them, I will always believe Obama stole and paid for this win....not a real win in the minds of many people......now I wait for censorship....race will still be an issue (it keeps him in the game)....loss of personal rights....gun restrictions....free abortions for all.....and terrorism on American soil again......but....I will support my President because it is my patriotic duty.....wonder what my new hopey changey country's song, flag, emblem, pledge, will look and sound like? A lot of red I think.
I worked the polls today from 5 am until 9pm. An amazing experience.....angry democrats complaining constantly and some of them incredibly rude to everyone.....iffy voters (only a few though)....a McCain win in the precinct I was in and it wasn't even my own...very interesting people and an experience I hope to repeat in the future.
Obama himself ran the MEANEST, NASTIEST campaign I have ever seen and anyone who believes otherwise drank way too much kook-aid in the last couple of years. Right PUMAS?
1) he paid $650 million for his Presidency in a time when that sure would put a lot of food on Americans tables. he didn't feel the need to 'share the wealth'....selfish?
2) he and his supporters used fraud, deception, corruption, and thug tactics to steal votes......Black Panther brute squads tonight!
3) we know MILLIONS of votes were fraudulent
4) if people didn't hate Bush so much he wouldn't have had a prayer
5) if the media hadn't been in the pocket for him he wouldn't have had a prayer
5) if he didn't accept illegal contributions from foreigners he wouldn't have had a prayer
6) in an unorganized campaign by McCain Obama could still not seal the deal with most of the American population when he had EVERYTHING going for him to win.....
7) he personally kept racism alive and active in this campaign....not even the decendent of an american black slave, but he used the 'race card' continually.... HE is the racist....his supporters are RACIST
All of that says a lot about Obama and just like Dems like to think the Presidency was stolen from them, I will always believe Obama stole and paid for this win....not a real win in the minds of many people......now I wait for censorship....race will still be an issue (it keeps him in the game)....loss of personal rights....gun restrictions....free abortions for all.....and terrorism on American soil again......but....I will support my President because it is my patriotic duty.....wonder what my new hopey changey country's song, flag, emblem, pledge, will look and sound like? A lot of red I think.
I worked the polls today from 5 am until 9pm. An amazing experience.....angry democrats complaining constantly and some of them incredibly rude to everyone.....iffy voters (only a few though)....a McCain win in the precinct I was in and it wasn't even my own...very interesting people and an experience I hope to repeat in the future.
Obama himself ran the MEANEST, NASTIEST campaign I have ever seen and anyone who believes otherwise drank way too much kook-aid in the last couple of years. Right PUMAS?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama's plan to bankrupt America
For all the Kool-Aid drinkers in America....Obama has clearly spelled out his plan for American...when he is 'off script'. Why aren't people listening?
1) Spread the wealth by taxing the rich to give to the poor and those who don't pay taxes...that number has now dropped to $50,000 a year because it is 'PATRIOTIC' to do and 'SELFISH' if you don't agree...
2) Cap and Trade so that electricity rates will 'SKYROCKET'.."Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." "just a small price to pay to pave the way for the coming energy utopia when we heat our homes with faerie farts and renewable rainbows.
3) He wants the Cap and Trade to be so high that it will 'BANKRUPT' the coal industry.
These are just a few of the promises of Hopey Changey crap he has in store for us.....not to mention the CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCES ala....the Third Reich Hitler Youth
Paying for the abortions of anyone that wants them (genocide anyone?)
Giving even more welfare rebates to the welfare slaves
Infanticide by voting 4 TIMES against Born Alive Act
Pulling out of Iraq, defunding our military and leaving Israel to fry.....
Voter Fraud
Breaking campaign promises 4 TIMES
Spending millions to steal an election while Auntie lives in poverty
All this while his Auntie is in the country illegally and POOR and his brother lives in a hut on $1 a month in Africa and they don't where his illegal Uncle is in America.........
THIS is the Change we want??? To all the Kool-Aid drinkers.....did you do too many drugs in college? Did you inhale as much as Obama since 'that was the point?' Have you read the Daily Kos so much that you have lost all sense of reason let alone all ability to think logically and coherently? Is your hated of America so great that you believe we should all suffer for the perceived sins of the Demon Bush you bash so ineloquently? yeah, we get it..your 'angry'...more like seriously demented!
1) Spread the wealth by taxing the rich to give to the poor and those who don't pay taxes...that number has now dropped to $50,000 a year because it is 'PATRIOTIC' to do and 'SELFISH' if you don't agree...
2) Cap and Trade so that electricity rates will 'SKYROCKET'.."Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." "just a small price to pay to pave the way for the coming energy utopia when we heat our homes with faerie farts and renewable rainbows.
3) He wants the Cap and Trade to be so high that it will 'BANKRUPT' the coal industry.
These are just a few of the promises of Hopey Changey crap he has in store for us.....not to mention the CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCES ala....the Third Reich Hitler Youth
Paying for the abortions of anyone that wants them (genocide anyone?)
Giving even more welfare rebates to the welfare slaves
Infanticide by voting 4 TIMES against Born Alive Act
Pulling out of Iraq, defunding our military and leaving Israel to fry.....
Voter Fraud
Breaking campaign promises 4 TIMES
Spending millions to steal an election while Auntie lives in poverty
All this while his Auntie is in the country illegally and POOR and his brother lives in a hut on $1 a month in Africa and they don't where his illegal Uncle is in America.........
THIS is the Change we want??? To all the Kool-Aid drinkers.....did you do too many drugs in college? Did you inhale as much as Obama since 'that was the point?' Have you read the Daily Kos so much that you have lost all sense of reason let alone all ability to think logically and coherently? Is your hated of America so great that you believe we should all suffer for the perceived sins of the Demon Bush you bash so ineloquently? yeah, we get it..your 'angry'...more like seriously demented!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
I voted FOR the USA. Does that make me racist?
The issue of RACE has been the buzz word of the Obama campaign. Anytime anyone anywhere has a complaint about Obama, makes a comment on Obama's policies or beliefs, or disagrees with Obama then the charge 'racist' is leveled at them. This has been the divisive tactic in this campaign and it has bled over into my own family. It does not matter than I can state more than 50 logical, accurate, factual and specific reasons why I did NOT vote for Obama. It does not matter that I oppose him on every single issue. It does not matter that I am no longer a Democrat. It does not matter that I believe he lacks character. It does not matter that my stepfather of 26 years is a black man and my brothers are half black. It does not matter that I come from a multi-cultural family. None of it matters. All that matters is that I did not vote for this black man and therefore, according to the pseudo-intellectuals and white apologists in my family, I must be RACIST.
I didn't see this 'historical' opportunity to vote for a black president. I saw the historical implications of an Obama presidency and recognized the implications of a socialistic/marxist, anti-constitutional, not life affirming, extreme liberal, elitist, judgment impaired, inexperienced senator having control of the future of the USA and I said NO WAY.
As for Obama being black......Obama is the decendant of a black african muslim and NOT the decendant of US black slaves. His frame of reference is very different from the average black american. He plays on his 'blackness' to win the black vote, but he alliances have been with radicals, marxists, terrorists, muslims, etc all black AND white. He does not KNOW the black experience of this country. He has not lived in poverty. He has not fought his way. He has lived a life of white privilege and it is the wealth of others (questionable too) that has propelled him forward.
For intelligent individuals to NOT desire to know or accept the truth of Obama is frightening. People who's sole source of information are sites like Daily Kos, the NYT, and biased media sources who are unwillingly to connect the dots on Obama and they 'whitewash' him into something he is NOT. Those who elevate him to 'messiah' status and see his HOPEY CHANGEY mantra as something new and different instead of more of the same old tired race baiting, welfare slavery inducing, policies of the past.
I voted FOR America. I voted FOR life. I voted FOR capitalism. I voted FOR the constitution. I voted FOR national security. I voted FOR the mavericks.
Here are some things to note from Marc Sheppard on the media and race:
As Black racism is the direct result of White racism, any mention of racist Jeremiah Wright or the Obamas' 20 years of receiving his anti-American anti-White sermons, is itself, racist.
As ACORN is largely a black organization concerned primarily with minority issues, any questions about the multi-state vote-rigging allegations against them or Obama's involvement therein is racist.
Mentioning Obama once "palled around" with Bill Ayers is racist - despite the domestic terrorist's white face.
Suggesting minority-centric lending policies were factors in the Fannie/Freddie collapse is racist; more so if former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines' name is surfaced.
Calling a black man "articulate and bright and clean" is racist as it apparently implies most are not.
"Arrogant" and "Elitist" are both code-words for "uppity" which has a particularly pernicious meaning when applied to anyone of color.
"Socialist" is a code-word for black.
"Community Organizer" is also a code-word for black
Even "Inexperienced" is a code-word for black.
"Celebrity" is a code-word for black, and a subliminal reference to black-on-white rape when juxtaposed with celebrities of fair and soft skin
I didn't see this 'historical' opportunity to vote for a black president. I saw the historical implications of an Obama presidency and recognized the implications of a socialistic/marxist, anti-constitutional, not life affirming, extreme liberal, elitist, judgment impaired, inexperienced senator having control of the future of the USA and I said NO WAY.
As for Obama being black......Obama is the decendant of a black african muslim and NOT the decendant of US black slaves. His frame of reference is very different from the average black american. He plays on his 'blackness' to win the black vote, but he alliances have been with radicals, marxists, terrorists, muslims, etc all black AND white. He does not KNOW the black experience of this country. He has not lived in poverty. He has not fought his way. He has lived a life of white privilege and it is the wealth of others (questionable too) that has propelled him forward.
For intelligent individuals to NOT desire to know or accept the truth of Obama is frightening. People who's sole source of information are sites like Daily Kos, the NYT, and biased media sources who are unwillingly to connect the dots on Obama and they 'whitewash' him into something he is NOT. Those who elevate him to 'messiah' status and see his HOPEY CHANGEY mantra as something new and different instead of more of the same old tired race baiting, welfare slavery inducing, policies of the past.
I voted FOR America. I voted FOR life. I voted FOR capitalism. I voted FOR the constitution. I voted FOR national security. I voted FOR the mavericks.
Here are some things to note from Marc Sheppard on the media and race:
As Black racism is the direct result of White racism, any mention of racist Jeremiah Wright or the Obamas' 20 years of receiving his anti-American anti-White sermons, is itself, racist.
As ACORN is largely a black organization concerned primarily with minority issues, any questions about the multi-state vote-rigging allegations against them or Obama's involvement therein is racist.
Mentioning Obama once "palled around" with Bill Ayers is racist - despite the domestic terrorist's white face.
Suggesting minority-centric lending policies were factors in the Fannie/Freddie collapse is racist; more so if former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines' name is surfaced.
Calling a black man "articulate and bright and clean" is racist as it apparently implies most are not.
"Arrogant" and "Elitist" are both code-words for "uppity" which has a particularly pernicious meaning when applied to anyone of color.
"Socialist" is a code-word for black.
"Community Organizer" is also a code-word for black
Even "Inexperienced" is a code-word for black.
"Celebrity" is a code-word for black, and a subliminal reference to black-on-white rape when juxtaposed with celebrities of fair and soft skin
American Jews HATE Israel......
I have often wondered about the American Jew's willingness to vote for those that are blatant jew bashers and jew haters. Is it self-loathing? Many american jews are 'jew' by ethnicity, but loath the religious aspect of their 'jewish identity' (tradition? yes, but belief? No) and lack a connectedness to Israel. Their allegience is to 'liberalism' as their religion of choice. Here is a great article:
An Election Plea To Those Who Love Israel Sammy Benoit
Whether he wins or loses, all signs point to the fact is Barack Obama will receive the majority of the Jewish vote in the presidential elections. But even a few percentage point shift in the Jewish vote can mean a McCain win in some of the key battleground states.
The astounding part of that is that Obama is receiving the vote DESPITE the fact that he has assembled a crew of advisers that have a negative opinion of Israel. Despite that a Barack Obama presidency may turn out to be the most anti-Israel administration since George HW Bush.
Please take a look at these people allied with the Obama Campaign, Some of them are Anti-Israel others are Anti-Semitic AND Anti-Israel:
Samantha Powers- She called for an invasion of Israel to impose a solution to the Palestinian Issue. She has also complained about the undue influence of the "Jews" in American Foreign Policy.
Don't forget Dick Lugar who was mentioned by the senator as one of Foreign Policy advisers during the third debate.
Robert Mally -- He expressed his support of the Palestinian "Militias" attacking Israel
Zbigniew Brzezinski who was screwing Israel as a member of the Carter Administration. He He has also been active supporting Messrs Mearsheimer and Walt's attack on the Jewish Lobby. He also said that American Jews Practice McCarthyism and that America must stop Israel from protecting herself vs Iran.
Then there is Merrill A. McPeak. He said that the only reason there is not Mid-East peace in the world is American Jews.
Daniel Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew, was one of Secretary of State James " F**K the Jews" Baker's team of Anti-Israel "Jew Boys."
Joe Cirincione thought that talk of a Syrian Nuclear in the desert was nonsense. Immediately following Israel's air raid this past September, Cirincione listed "Israelis [who] want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria" as among those spreading rumors Syria was constructing a nuclear facility.
How about Senator Hagel who went with Obama on his little trip to Israel. He is one of the two or three MOST Anti-Israel Senators.
Some of you may be thinking, "Just another guilt by association charge." Let me tell you why you are wrong. These are all people that Obama has chosen to surround himself with, not accedental encounters.Beyond Obama's Anti-Jew Crew of advisers the real truth is, if you take a look at the platforms the two major parties are running on, you will find some REAL and uncomfortable differences between the two candidates.This month's Journal of International Security Affairs, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center makes an Item by Item comparison of the "Jewish Issues" in the both campaign's platforms. On important issues from appeasing terrorists, to Iran, to Jerusalem, settlements etc., the Republican platform has positions much more favorable to the Jewish State.Folks the truth is that I had many issues with the way George W. Bush ran middle east policy. But there are a few things that are clear. Bush was the first president that considered a terrorist attack in Israel just as bad as one elswhere it the world. He constantly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised her as America’s number one ally in the Middle East. He also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems.A Barack Obama Presidency would return US/Israel relations back to the days of James Baker's "They have my number they can call me." A US trying to impose a dangerous one-sided solution on the Jewish State.A John McCain Presidency will use the George W. Bush solution as a starting point and create an even closer relationship with Israel.Folks the Choice is yours, The future of Israel and the Jewish People may depend on it.
An Election Plea To Those Who Love Israel Sammy Benoit
Whether he wins or loses, all signs point to the fact is Barack Obama will receive the majority of the Jewish vote in the presidential elections. But even a few percentage point shift in the Jewish vote can mean a McCain win in some of the key battleground states.
The astounding part of that is that Obama is receiving the vote DESPITE the fact that he has assembled a crew of advisers that have a negative opinion of Israel. Despite that a Barack Obama presidency may turn out to be the most anti-Israel administration since George HW Bush.
Please take a look at these people allied with the Obama Campaign, Some of them are Anti-Israel others are Anti-Semitic AND Anti-Israel:
Samantha Powers- She called for an invasion of Israel to impose a solution to the Palestinian Issue. She has also complained about the undue influence of the "Jews" in American Foreign Policy.
Don't forget Dick Lugar who was mentioned by the senator as one of Foreign Policy advisers during the third debate.
Robert Mally -- He expressed his support of the Palestinian "Militias" attacking Israel
Zbigniew Brzezinski who was screwing Israel as a member of the Carter Administration. He He has also been active supporting Messrs Mearsheimer and Walt's attack on the Jewish Lobby. He also said that American Jews Practice McCarthyism and that America must stop Israel from protecting herself vs Iran.
Then there is Merrill A. McPeak. He said that the only reason there is not Mid-East peace in the world is American Jews.
Daniel Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew, was one of Secretary of State James " F**K the Jews" Baker's team of Anti-Israel "Jew Boys."
Joe Cirincione thought that talk of a Syrian Nuclear in the desert was nonsense. Immediately following Israel's air raid this past September, Cirincione listed "Israelis [who] want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria" as among those spreading rumors Syria was constructing a nuclear facility.
How about Senator Hagel who went with Obama on his little trip to Israel. He is one of the two or three MOST Anti-Israel Senators.
Some of you may be thinking, "Just another guilt by association charge." Let me tell you why you are wrong. These are all people that Obama has chosen to surround himself with, not accedental encounters.Beyond Obama's Anti-Jew Crew of advisers the real truth is, if you take a look at the platforms the two major parties are running on, you will find some REAL and uncomfortable differences between the two candidates.This month's Journal of International Security Affairs, Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center makes an Item by Item comparison of the "Jewish Issues" in the both campaign's platforms. On important issues from appeasing terrorists, to Iran, to Jerusalem, settlements etc., the Republican platform has positions much more favorable to the Jewish State.Folks the truth is that I had many issues with the way George W. Bush ran middle east policy. But there are a few things that are clear. Bush was the first president that considered a terrorist attack in Israel just as bad as one elswhere it the world. He constantly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised her as America’s number one ally in the Middle East. He also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems.A Barack Obama Presidency would return US/Israel relations back to the days of James Baker's "They have my number they can call me." A US trying to impose a dangerous one-sided solution on the Jewish State.A John McCain Presidency will use the George W. Bush solution as a starting point and create an even closer relationship with Israel.Folks the Choice is yours, The future of Israel and the Jewish People may depend on it.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Obama and Weather Underground, Socialism and Communism
Obama's terrorist pals wrote about the need to encourage "organizers" who will work in "communities" and use "audacity" to bring about "socialism" in America.
The emblems for Weather Underground and Obama campaign look strikingly 'similar'http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=70.
Obama Presidency a 'Historic' Tragedy--Change we can do without
By Thomas Sowell....newsmax.com
Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.
Read more.....http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_politics_change/2008/10/29/145434.html
Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.
Read more.....http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_politics_change/2008/10/29/145434.html
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama a genius? Where is the proof?
Misopalinism [Victor Davis Hanson]
I remain convinced that the continuing furor over (as opposed to disagreement with) Palin still originates in large part from class, cultural, and geographical disdain. So I am struck how often criticism of Palin could be more than equally applied to both Obama and Biden—but rarely is. I would be curious to collate Mrs. Palin's undergraduate transcript with that of Mr. Obama's, but learn that would be impossible since for some unknown reason the latter at Columbia is under lock and key. No comment on Mr. Biden's, since long ago we learned that the senator is not factual in his recall of matters academic.Anti-intellectual and anti-enlightenment? Anyone who collates the rantings of Rev. Wright, the 20-year erstwhile spiritual advisor to Mr. Obama (whom 'I could no more disown than ....' ) would find discourses on crackpot anti-black middle-classness, strange new bombs primed to hunt down blacks and Arabs, and something called black liberation theology that is on an intellectual par with phrenology. If one were to review the lunatic groups that received money from the Chicago Anneberg Challenge or the Woods Fund, one could infer that neither logic nor facts weighed into Obama's decision-making.
Scholarship? I know of no legal scholarly papers published by Obama, either as an editor at Harvard Law Review or a lecturer at the Chicago Law School; what little op-ed commentary he has written (cf. his post 9/11 essay) is on par with Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis. His memoirs are well crafted, but their content is ignored since it offers a logical explanation for everyone from Wright to Ayers, and everything from redistribution to racialism.
Both Obama's and Biden's historical recall is at times frightening (e.g., We liberated Auschwitz; the largely Anglo-American Berlin Airflift was a world effort; FDR went on TV as President in 1929; Hezbollah is out of Lebanon; etc.).
Their popular notion of science often turns puerile (checking for proper tire pressure substitutes for the energy captured by tapping into billions of barrels in reserves of new oil; we are not to burn coal—when it currently supplies half the power for our electrical generation and we sit atop the world's largest coal reserves, etc.). If we turn to math, we learn there are either 57 or 47 states, and J-O-B-S is a three-letter word.
And while Ms. Palin is donating her clothes to charity, I am not sure that Team Obama can do the same with the now discarded multimillion-dollar faux-Greek columns and pediments or the now obsolete vero possumus seal.
I have no problem with admitting (thankfully) that Palin is no Adlai Stevenson, but why do others apparently assume that Obama or Biden is?
I remain convinced that the continuing furor over (as opposed to disagreement with) Palin still originates in large part from class, cultural, and geographical disdain. So I am struck how often criticism of Palin could be more than equally applied to both Obama and Biden—but rarely is. I would be curious to collate Mrs. Palin's undergraduate transcript with that of Mr. Obama's, but learn that would be impossible since for some unknown reason the latter at Columbia is under lock and key. No comment on Mr. Biden's, since long ago we learned that the senator is not factual in his recall of matters academic.Anti-intellectual and anti-enlightenment? Anyone who collates the rantings of Rev. Wright, the 20-year erstwhile spiritual advisor to Mr. Obama (whom 'I could no more disown than ....' ) would find discourses on crackpot anti-black middle-classness, strange new bombs primed to hunt down blacks and Arabs, and something called black liberation theology that is on an intellectual par with phrenology. If one were to review the lunatic groups that received money from the Chicago Anneberg Challenge or the Woods Fund, one could infer that neither logic nor facts weighed into Obama's decision-making.
Scholarship? I know of no legal scholarly papers published by Obama, either as an editor at Harvard Law Review or a lecturer at the Chicago Law School; what little op-ed commentary he has written (cf. his post 9/11 essay) is on par with Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis. His memoirs are well crafted, but their content is ignored since it offers a logical explanation for everyone from Wright to Ayers, and everything from redistribution to racialism.
Both Obama's and Biden's historical recall is at times frightening (e.g., We liberated Auschwitz; the largely Anglo-American Berlin Airflift was a world effort; FDR went on TV as President in 1929; Hezbollah is out of Lebanon; etc.).
Their popular notion of science often turns puerile (checking for proper tire pressure substitutes for the energy captured by tapping into billions of barrels in reserves of new oil; we are not to burn coal—when it currently supplies half the power for our electrical generation and we sit atop the world's largest coal reserves, etc.). If we turn to math, we learn there are either 57 or 47 states, and J-O-B-S is a three-letter word.
And while Ms. Palin is donating her clothes to charity, I am not sure that Team Obama can do the same with the now discarded multimillion-dollar faux-Greek columns and pediments or the now obsolete vero possumus seal.
I have no problem with admitting (thankfully) that Palin is no Adlai Stevenson, but why do others apparently assume that Obama or Biden is?
Khalidi Palestine Liberation Org. leader a problem.
Many people don't understand or comprehend why Rashid Khalidi is a problem relationship for Obama. They just think it is one more friendship...no big deal. They just ignore the fact that all these relationships add up to a very Marxist leaning/lying US Presidential Candidate. Obama's language is 'telling'. Why should YOU care? Obama, again, lies and says Israel is to be protected while supporting groups that denounce Israel and are Anti-Semitic. Here is an example:
"I kind of raised my eyebrows last February when Obama went on his glib little diatribe against "an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel." That kind of language is very particular and very revelatory. Likud Prime Ministers are the ones who made peace with Egypt, handed over Hebron to Arafat, and handed over Gaza to the Palestinians. So someone who's just studying Middle East history would never naturally end up using "pro-Likud" as a synonym for "intransigent Zionist right winger." Dozens of one-sided lectures and conversations are necessary before that kind of rhetoric seems quotidian.
There is one specific community that talks like that all the time - where "pro-Likud" actually means "pro-Israel" and both are supposed to be derisive. That would be the radical, Israel-hating academic community that was so well-represented at Khalidi's celebration. And why wouldn't their best and brightest be there? Khalidi himself was a master at that kind of rhetoric:
The dominant neoconservative elements in the administration were already predisposed to accept a hard-line Likud analysis... these necon "Sharonistas" in official and unofficial Washington has long espoused extremist Likud views...[this] line of thinking was shared by the Bush administration's ascendant neocons and the new Likud government
Khalidi has also been known to express his vicious, batshit crazy conspiracy theories in the same charming language: "for these American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts, sad to say, the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend."
Aaron Klein is also pretty convinced that Obama picked up his "Israel is a constant sore" line from Khalidi:
Continue reading "So That's Where Obama Learned To Talk Like An Obsessed Anti-Semitic Academic" » (from mererhetoric......http://www.mererhetoric.com/)
"I kind of raised my eyebrows last February when Obama went on his glib little diatribe against "an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel." That kind of language is very particular and very revelatory. Likud Prime Ministers are the ones who made peace with Egypt, handed over Hebron to Arafat, and handed over Gaza to the Palestinians. So someone who's just studying Middle East history would never naturally end up using "pro-Likud" as a synonym for "intransigent Zionist right winger." Dozens of one-sided lectures and conversations are necessary before that kind of rhetoric seems quotidian.
There is one specific community that talks like that all the time - where "pro-Likud" actually means "pro-Israel" and both are supposed to be derisive. That would be the radical, Israel-hating academic community that was so well-represented at Khalidi's celebration. And why wouldn't their best and brightest be there? Khalidi himself was a master at that kind of rhetoric:
The dominant neoconservative elements in the administration were already predisposed to accept a hard-line Likud analysis... these necon "Sharonistas" in official and unofficial Washington has long espoused extremist Likud views...[this] line of thinking was shared by the Bush administration's ascendant neocons and the new Likud government
Khalidi has also been known to express his vicious, batshit crazy conspiracy theories in the same charming language: "for these American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts, sad to say, the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend."
Aaron Klein is also pretty convinced that Obama picked up his "Israel is a constant sore" line from Khalidi:
Continue reading "So That's Where Obama Learned To Talk Like An Obsessed Anti-Semitic Academic" » (from mererhetoric......http://www.mererhetoric.com/)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
More Obama fraud
Just how much fraud is too much fraud in the Obama campaign before the Obamatized masses wake up and take note? Voter fraud, campaign contribution fraud, media fraud, personal association fraud, personal history fraud...the list just grows and grows...but the Obamatized masses just go gleefully forward to our doom....Oh I am sure the Daily craphole Kos has a 'reasonable' explanation for this too. yeah, right.
"Fully $100 million of the record-breaking $150 million that the Obama campaign collected in September alone came over the internet via credit card donations. The Obama campaign has deliberately turned off the anti-fraud mechanisms available for internet credit card transactions. They have no clue how many millions or tens of millions of dollars have been donated to them in violation of federal election law. And now it turns out that the Obama campaign cheerfully takes even contributions from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, a/k/a "the pseudo-credit cards you use when you want to conceal illegal activity."
"Fully $100 million of the record-breaking $150 million that the Obama campaign collected in September alone came over the internet via credit card donations. The Obama campaign has deliberately turned off the anti-fraud mechanisms available for internet credit card transactions. They have no clue how many millions or tens of millions of dollars have been donated to them in violation of federal election law. And now it turns out that the Obama campaign cheerfully takes even contributions from untraceable pre-paid credit cards, a/k/a "the pseudo-credit cards you use when you want to conceal illegal activity."
Obama says friends were 'carefully chosen'.
""To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Yes, friends DO matter.....he even admits it. So why don't people get it???
Yes, friends DO matter.....he even admits it. So why don't people get it???
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A sign of the future?
After spending nine years in Navy Intelligence as … After spending nine years in Navy Intelligence as a Cryptologist, intercepting communications from Marxist/Socialist countries, breaking their codes, and gathering intelligence in “other” ways. I am familiar with their methods of using the media for propaganda, using the educational system to indoctrinate young minds, using the judicial system, and voter fraud to steal elections. This is what is happening now in America. From everything I have researched in the last two years, has lead me to conclude that Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, scripted, and financed by Radical Marxist/Socialists to become the puppet leader of the USSA. There is a vast difference between Social Democrats and Radical Marxist/Socialists. Hillary Clinton is a Social Democrat. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, Durbin, Franks, Boxer, and a few others now in Congress are Radical Marxist/Socialists.
On my website: [valsword.spaces.live.com] I have a 16 minute video of an interview with Yure Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1970. This interview was recorded 24 years ago, and the transcript highlights, in Yuri’s own words confirm what I mentioned in the first paragraph. I pray that I am wrong, but from everything I have researched, I believe Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system will pull a Hugo Chavez.
In a recent address to his subjects, carried by fiat on all of the nation’s television channels, Venezuela’s authoritarian president Hugo Chávez Frias, who has previously taken over the airways for the celebration of his own birthday, now turned his country’s attention to more urgent matters. The time had come, he explained, to move the “Bolivarian revolution” from its Lenin-like beginnings of transitional capitalism towards a more robust command economy. The nation had at last “broken the chains of the old, exploitative capitalist system,” he said. “The state now has the obligation to build the model of a socialist economy.”
The next stage of the socialist revolution will require making thirty-three separate amendments to the Venezuelan constitution—a document Chávez previously rewrote upon his ascension to Miraflores Palace in 1999. The most dramatic and controversial change will eliminate presidential term limits, ensuring the fulfillment of Chavez’s promise not to leave office until 2021. To Hugo Chávez, a permanent revolution requires that he wield permanent power. It’s a risky move, considering recent opinion polls showing a majority of Venezuelans skeptical to further constitutional “reform,” especially if it means the possibility of adopting a President Chávez for life. But the same public, polling data demonstrates, also opposed the government’s refusal to renew a broadcast license for RCTV, the country’s oldest and most anti-Chávez private television network, and that storm seems to have passed. (radarsite)
On my website: [valsword.spaces.live.com] I have a 16 minute video of an interview with Yure Bezmenov a KGB agent who defected in 1970. This interview was recorded 24 years ago, and the transcript highlights, in Yuri’s own words confirm what I mentioned in the first paragraph. I pray that I am wrong, but from everything I have researched, I believe Obama, with a Reid Pelosi led Congress, with a radical judicial system will pull a Hugo Chavez.
In a recent address to his subjects, carried by fiat on all of the nation’s television channels, Venezuela’s authoritarian president Hugo Chávez Frias, who has previously taken over the airways for the celebration of his own birthday, now turned his country’s attention to more urgent matters. The time had come, he explained, to move the “Bolivarian revolution” from its Lenin-like beginnings of transitional capitalism towards a more robust command economy. The nation had at last “broken the chains of the old, exploitative capitalist system,” he said. “The state now has the obligation to build the model of a socialist economy.”
The next stage of the socialist revolution will require making thirty-three separate amendments to the Venezuelan constitution—a document Chávez previously rewrote upon his ascension to Miraflores Palace in 1999. The most dramatic and controversial change will eliminate presidential term limits, ensuring the fulfillment of Chavez’s promise not to leave office until 2021. To Hugo Chávez, a permanent revolution requires that he wield permanent power. It’s a risky move, considering recent opinion polls showing a majority of Venezuelans skeptical to further constitutional “reform,” especially if it means the possibility of adopting a President Chávez for life. But the same public, polling data demonstrates, also opposed the government’s refusal to renew a broadcast license for RCTV, the country’s oldest and most anti-Chávez private television network, and that storm seems to have passed. (radarsite)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama and marxism
The 2nd College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines Marxism as "a system of thought that gives class struggle a primary role in leading society from bourgeois democracy under capitalism to a socialist society and from there to communism." Sound like any Presidential candidate you know? Is it mere coinsidence that both class struggle and avoiding "middle classness" as Rev. Wright and Michelle tell audiences are main tenets of black liberation theology?
Obama doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has done enought to 'redefine' the Constitution. HUH????
Obama doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has done enought to 'redefine' the Constitution. HUH????
Friends and records do they matter?
As with most people, many of the people closest to you, shape you into what you become as an adult. Take a look at the partial list of people that Obama has been influenced by…
Father - Communist activist
Mother - Communist symphasizer
Brother(Roy) - Luo activist, militant muslim, marxist
Bill Ayers - American terrorist, marxist
Bernadine Dohrn - Wife of Bill, American terrorist, marxist
Rev. Wright - Racist, anti-american, marxist
Louis Farrakhan - Racist, anti-semite, marxist
ACORN - Socialist organization, voter fraud
Democratic Socialists of America - Socialist organization
Endorsed by Communist Party USA
Endorsed by Chicago Young Communists Leauge
Endorsed by Marxists/Communists/Socialists for Obama
Endorsed by Hamas terrorist group
Michelle Obama - Marxist, race baiter, Public Allies director
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
7. Law practice client list — Not released
8. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
9. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
12. His Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
13. His Illinois State Senate records–’not available’
Put it all together and what do I see? I see a man that has lived a part of his adult life as a Revolutionary, wanting nothing less than to see the American way of life dissolved forever. I see a man that see’s everything through his Spiritual and Political education, and from what we know about both, Obama is scary.
Father - Communist activist
Mother - Communist symphasizer
Brother(Roy) - Luo activist, militant muslim, marxist
Bill Ayers - American terrorist, marxist
Bernadine Dohrn - Wife of Bill, American terrorist, marxist
Rev. Wright - Racist, anti-american, marxist
Louis Farrakhan - Racist, anti-semite, marxist
ACORN - Socialist organization, voter fraud
Democratic Socialists of America - Socialist organization
Endorsed by Communist Party USA
Endorsed by Chicago Young Communists Leauge
Endorsed by Marxists/Communists/Socialists for Obama
Endorsed by Hamas terrorist group
Michelle Obama - Marxist, race baiter, Public Allies director
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
7. Law practice client list — Not released
8. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
9. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
12. His Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
13. His Illinois State Senate records–’not available’
Put it all together and what do I see? I see a man that has lived a part of his adult life as a Revolutionary, wanting nothing less than to see the American way of life dissolved forever. I see a man that see’s everything through his Spiritual and Political education, and from what we know about both, Obama is scary.
Friday, October 24, 2008
NYT JUNK BONDS
My, my, my...at it a shame (snicker)....Certainly wouldn't be because it is a liberal, hack, rag these days...."Moody’s Investors Service said on Thursday it may cut its ratings on New York Times Co into junk territory, citing concerns about continuing revenue declines and risks associated with refinancing its debt.
The New York Times posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday and said advertising revenue at its news media group dropped 16 percent for the quarter." Story continues: boo hooooo hoo
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/new-york-times-stock-nears-junk-territory/
Michael Goldfarb smacks the NYT, "“Just after the New York Times ended months of intense speculation by announcing its endorsement of Barack Obama, the company’s corporate credit rating was lowered to ‘junk’ status — an appropriate reflection of the paper’s editorial judgment as well as the quality of its reporting.”
The New York Times posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday and said advertising revenue at its news media group dropped 16 percent for the quarter." Story continues: boo hooooo hoo
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/23/new-york-times-stock-nears-junk-territory/
Michael Goldfarb smacks the NYT, "“Just after the New York Times ended months of intense speculation by announcing its endorsement of Barack Obama, the company’s corporate credit rating was lowered to ‘junk’ status — an appropriate reflection of the paper’s editorial judgment as well as the quality of its reporting.”
Obama endorse marxist New Party candidate "We share the same values"
Barack Obama started his political career in 1996 in the living room of a domestic terrorist.
Obama began his career as a member of the quasi-Marxist New Party.
Obama is the most liberal member of the US Senate let alone the most radical candidate to ever run for President of the United States.
This man is no moderate.
By the way-- The New Party, ACORN and Project Vote shared the same address in Chicago.
Note: He doesn't sound 'controlled, presidential, or smooth' here. He sounds ANGRY. hmmm.
The real Obama
Barack Obama denies and conceals his liberalism and packages himself as a harbinger of hope and change.
Obama's policies represent change all right: change from almost everything our Founding Fathers considered sacred and vital to the preservation of individual liberty in America.
As for Obama's leftist policy positions and attitudes, how do you think the following would sit with most Americans?
His enabling of infanticide by arguing and voting against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in the Illinois Senate, which would have protected babies who survive failed abortions.
His support of open borders and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
His casual endorsement of Marxist redistribution of wealth.
His plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, resulting in a massive tax increase for tens of millions, and his tax credits to tens of millions more not paying income taxes, all while fibbing that he's going to cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
His plans to increase spending an estimated $1.3 trillion, not to mention the obscene dollars he would send overseas with the Global Poverty Act.
His condemnation of our liberation of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in furtherance of our national security interests yet promising military interventions for humanitarian reasons where we clearly have no national interests at stake.
His opposition to the surge in Iraq and his plan to withdraw and jeopardize our imminent victory and the region's stability.
His reckless plan to embroil us in a quagmire in Afghanistan and agitate Pakistan, our important ally in the war on terror.
His naive commitment to negotiate with tyrants without preconditions.
His inclination toward unilateral nuclear disarmament.
His constant references to America's former greatness and his promises to restore our position of respectfulness in the world, betraying his full agreement that we've earned this supposed international disrespect.
His forfeiture of American sovereignty to international bodies in obeisance to the pantheistic religion of global warming.
His Kerryesque schizophrenia on guns and the Second Amendment.
His derision of small-town Americans as bitter clingers.
His thuggish approach toward those who dare to oppose him, such as Joe the Plumber, or anyone in St. Louis, whose criticism could have subjected them to criminal prosecution.
His outright mocking of the Bible while adamantly insisting he's a strong Christian: "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?" By David Limbaugh
Obama's policies represent change all right: change from almost everything our Founding Fathers considered sacred and vital to the preservation of individual liberty in America.
As for Obama's leftist policy positions and attitudes, how do you think the following would sit with most Americans?
His enabling of infanticide by arguing and voting against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in the Illinois Senate, which would have protected babies who survive failed abortions.
His support of open borders and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
His casual endorsement of Marxist redistribution of wealth.
His plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, resulting in a massive tax increase for tens of millions, and his tax credits to tens of millions more not paying income taxes, all while fibbing that he's going to cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans.
His plans to increase spending an estimated $1.3 trillion, not to mention the obscene dollars he would send overseas with the Global Poverty Act.
His condemnation of our liberation of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in furtherance of our national security interests yet promising military interventions for humanitarian reasons where we clearly have no national interests at stake.
His opposition to the surge in Iraq and his plan to withdraw and jeopardize our imminent victory and the region's stability.
His reckless plan to embroil us in a quagmire in Afghanistan and agitate Pakistan, our important ally in the war on terror.
His naive commitment to negotiate with tyrants without preconditions.
His inclination toward unilateral nuclear disarmament.
His constant references to America's former greatness and his promises to restore our position of respectfulness in the world, betraying his full agreement that we've earned this supposed international disrespect.
His forfeiture of American sovereignty to international bodies in obeisance to the pantheistic religion of global warming.
His Kerryesque schizophrenia on guns and the Second Amendment.
His derision of small-town Americans as bitter clingers.
His thuggish approach toward those who dare to oppose him, such as Joe the Plumber, or anyone in St. Louis, whose criticism could have subjected them to criminal prosecution.
His outright mocking of the Bible while adamantly insisting he's a strong Christian: "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?" By David Limbaugh
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Economists: Obama's tax plan will ruin the economy..and the tax code as well
Economist: Obama's Socialism Will Wreck the Economy
It'll Ruin the Tax Code as Well
Posted by: Brian Faughnan
Economist Adam Lerrick asks whether the tax code is at a tipping point, and if Barack Obama will shove it over the edge:
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
....Barack Obama couches all of his talk in the language of 'fairness;' of trying to make sure that everyone gets 'a slice of the pie.' But in employing the rhetoric of redistribution, class warfare, and yes, socialism, Obama ignores how progressive the tax code already is. It's often said that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. In trying to push the fairness needle further, Obama is attempting to lock that rule in as a foundation of tax policy.
As the Tax Foundation points out, the tax code already redistributes $1 trillion from the top 40 percent of earners to the lowest 60 percent. How much is enough for President Obama? And what happens if we discover, as France, Germany, the U.K., and much of Europe did, that you will destroy the economy and ruin government finances if you allow the bottom half of earners to vote themselves whatever benefits they want, at the expense of the minority.
It'll Ruin the Tax Code as Well
Posted by: Brian Faughnan
Economist Adam Lerrick asks whether the tax code is at a tipping point, and if Barack Obama will shove it over the edge:
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
....Barack Obama couches all of his talk in the language of 'fairness;' of trying to make sure that everyone gets 'a slice of the pie.' But in employing the rhetoric of redistribution, class warfare, and yes, socialism, Obama ignores how progressive the tax code already is. It's often said that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support. In trying to push the fairness needle further, Obama is attempting to lock that rule in as a foundation of tax policy.
As the Tax Foundation points out, the tax code already redistributes $1 trillion from the top 40 percent of earners to the lowest 60 percent. How much is enough for President Obama? And what happens if we discover, as France, Germany, the U.K., and much of Europe did, that you will destroy the economy and ruin government finances if you allow the bottom half of earners to vote themselves whatever benefits they want, at the expense of the minority.
The TRUTH about Bill Ayers and YOU
What did (does) the Weather Underground/Bill Ayers/radical fringe group have in store for YOU? 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide"...a CIA operative infiltrated group.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Does it matter to YOU?
Let's play "Does it matter to you?".....
*Does it matter that Louis Farrahkan, the leader of the Black Muslim movement (he believes at promotes the idea that ALL white people come from the Devil) said this of Obama..."You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change and that is why Barack has captured the youth and he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.
*Does it matter that Hollywood actor, Sean Penn, met with Venezuelan Dicatator and self-avowed America hater, Hugo Chavez for the 2nd time?
*Does it matter that black actor Harry Belafonte used to call Gen. Colin Powell a 'House Slave' and now respects him because he endorsed the most liberal Senator EVER?
*Does it matter that a law is being put into effect mandating a donation to ACORN, the corrupt political organization endorsed and legal respresented by Obama?
*Does it matter that Democrats in control of congress for 2 years have ruined the economy, benefited financially from Fannie and Freddie, are not being investigated and they are now saying they are going to 'go after a lot of rich people' for tax money and they want MORE?
*Does it matter that the movie "W" by Oliver Stone that lambasts Bush (no matter what you think of him) is fully funded by CHINA? CHINA???
*Does it matter that you can no longer say 'socialist', 'community organizer', 'welfare' or 'welfare recipient' because that is 'code language' for BLACK and therefore 'racist'?
*Does it matter that Gov. Sarah Palin, a woman, has been vilified, ridiculed, mocked, trashed, investigated, and even a porn movie has been made about a VP candidate and yet you can't ask ANY legitimate questions about and to Obama without being labeled 'racist, personally investigated, or sued?
*Does it matter that the Women's Movement has set ITSELF back hundreds of years becasue of self-loathing and self-hatred? That is the only explanation for the reason sane and intelligent women would not protest the hate, porn, violent acts and stories written about a woman with legitimate political aspirations? They did the same to Hillary Clinton...shame on women!
more 'does it matter' later...............
*Does it matter that Louis Farrahkan, the leader of the Black Muslim movement (he believes at promotes the idea that ALL white people come from the Devil) said this of Obama..."You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change and that is why Barack has captured the youth and he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.
*Does it matter that Hollywood actor, Sean Penn, met with Venezuelan Dicatator and self-avowed America hater, Hugo Chavez for the 2nd time?
*Does it matter that black actor Harry Belafonte used to call Gen. Colin Powell a 'House Slave' and now respects him because he endorsed the most liberal Senator EVER?
*Does it matter that a law is being put into effect mandating a donation to ACORN, the corrupt political organization endorsed and legal respresented by Obama?
*Does it matter that Democrats in control of congress for 2 years have ruined the economy, benefited financially from Fannie and Freddie, are not being investigated and they are now saying they are going to 'go after a lot of rich people' for tax money and they want MORE?
*Does it matter that the movie "W" by Oliver Stone that lambasts Bush (no matter what you think of him) is fully funded by CHINA? CHINA???
*Does it matter that you can no longer say 'socialist', 'community organizer', 'welfare' or 'welfare recipient' because that is 'code language' for BLACK and therefore 'racist'?
*Does it matter that Gov. Sarah Palin, a woman, has been vilified, ridiculed, mocked, trashed, investigated, and even a porn movie has been made about a VP candidate and yet you can't ask ANY legitimate questions about and to Obama without being labeled 'racist, personally investigated, or sued?
*Does it matter that the Women's Movement has set ITSELF back hundreds of years becasue of self-loathing and self-hatred? That is the only explanation for the reason sane and intelligent women would not protest the hate, porn, violent acts and stories written about a woman with legitimate political aspirations? They did the same to Hillary Clinton...shame on women!
more 'does it matter' later...............
Small business and Obama---Kiss the American Dream Good-bye
Obama will bankrupt small business. As a small business owner I can personally say that Obama's tax plan will ruin the American Dream for millions of Americans. The Wall Street Journal writes:
"Mr. Obama's tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in three direct ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That's the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%.
Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate.
"Mr. Obama's tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses in three direct ways. First, because 85% of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year could face a higher tax liability. That's the income level at which the 33% income tax bracket now phases in for individuals, and Mr. Obama would raise that tax rate for those businesses to 36%.
Second, the Obama plan phases out tax deductions (the so-called PEP and Pease provisions), thus raising tax rates imposed on this group by another 1.5 percentage points. Finally, Mr. Obama would require many small business owners to pay as much as a four-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000. All of this would bring the federal marginal small business tax rate up to nearly 45%, while big business would continue to pay the 35% corporate tax rate.
You have been warned
Make no mistake...your taxes WILL be raised. The creators of the financial mess will get your money and get to spend it their way.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Important decision to make...where do YOU stand?
We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.
Meanwhile, Obama’s life remains a laundry list of dirty secrets!
▪ Two weeks before the election, Obama refuses to offer documentation of legal citizenship, NO official birth certificate produced yet!
▪ Obama pokes fun, but still refuses to explain his Arab Muslim school records
▪ Obama’s ACORN Voter Fraud is under FBI investigation for federal crimes
▪ Now Obama is investigating the FBI investigation of ACORN – putting investigators on trial to defend known ACORN voter fraud
▪ Obama still refuses to unseal his college records
▪ Obama refuses to truthfully disclose Ayers and many other radical relationships
▪ Illegal Foreign money is still flooding into Obama campaign, unchecked!
▪ Obama “Senator Government” still lying about economic – tax plan
▪ Obama won’t explain why Saudi Royalty front-man, Dr. Khalid Al Mansour was grooming him through college
▪ Arab world campaign contributions 'may enable him to win U.S. presidency'
▪ Obama joined Libya's Gadhafi among top contributors to Kenya communist thug and Obama cousin, Odinga
The list of Obama secrets goes on and on and on... That’s part of the problem. There are so many evil Obama associations and the effort to conceal them all has been so massive, that there are not enough hours left to investigate it all before the election.
We know more than we should about Joe the Plumber, who just asked a question, when Obama drove through his neighborhood. The media has 'vetted' Joe, but a no go on the big O.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.
Meanwhile, Obama’s life remains a laundry list of dirty secrets!
▪ Two weeks before the election, Obama refuses to offer documentation of legal citizenship, NO official birth certificate produced yet!
▪ Obama pokes fun, but still refuses to explain his Arab Muslim school records
▪ Obama’s ACORN Voter Fraud is under FBI investigation for federal crimes
▪ Now Obama is investigating the FBI investigation of ACORN – putting investigators on trial to defend known ACORN voter fraud
▪ Obama still refuses to unseal his college records
▪ Obama refuses to truthfully disclose Ayers and many other radical relationships
▪ Illegal Foreign money is still flooding into Obama campaign, unchecked!
▪ Obama “Senator Government” still lying about economic – tax plan
▪ Obama won’t explain why Saudi Royalty front-man, Dr. Khalid Al Mansour was grooming him through college
▪ Arab world campaign contributions 'may enable him to win U.S. presidency'
▪ Obama joined Libya's Gadhafi among top contributors to Kenya communist thug and Obama cousin, Odinga
The list of Obama secrets goes on and on and on... That’s part of the problem. There are so many evil Obama associations and the effort to conceal them all has been so massive, that there are not enough hours left to investigate it all before the election.
We know more than we should about Joe the Plumber, who just asked a question, when Obama drove through his neighborhood. The media has 'vetted' Joe, but a no go on the big O.
Powell endorsement of Obama racially motivated
Pseudo-republican Gen. Colin Powell finally made the announcement everyone knew was coming. He endorsed B. Hussein Obama for President. This comes as no surprise to many. The Left and Gen. Powell say this is NOT racially motivated, yet, why would a purported Republican 4 Star General who was one of the major supporters of the Iraq War and who adamantly claimed there were WMD's, now support an ineffectual, inexperienced radical socialist BLACK candidate (but he looks good and he's smooth, right?)who opposed the surge if it were not for race?
The arguments for why he wouldn't be racially motivated do not hold water and Obama hates the polls closing the gap. Obama held Powell as his 'ace in the hole' endorsement for the end of the election to 'seal the deal'. It you think it isn't about race then you are just drinking the Kook-aid. Race has been the only word used consistently by the Obama campaign.
The problem is no one cares. Powell is just another BLACK person casting a vote for the BLACK candidate. Powell secures a cabinet position with Obama, Obama can say he 'crossed the aisle' with this pseudo-republican general, and black people everywhere cheer wildly as Obama is quickly tested in an INTERNATIONAL CRISIS within 6 months of his election. One in which Joe Biden says Obama's supporters will NOT be happy about. Hmmm......just another day in OZ
The arguments for why he wouldn't be racially motivated do not hold water and Obama hates the polls closing the gap. Obama held Powell as his 'ace in the hole' endorsement for the end of the election to 'seal the deal'. It you think it isn't about race then you are just drinking the Kook-aid. Race has been the only word used consistently by the Obama campaign.
The problem is no one cares. Powell is just another BLACK person casting a vote for the BLACK candidate. Powell secures a cabinet position with Obama, Obama can say he 'crossed the aisle' with this pseudo-republican general, and black people everywhere cheer wildly as Obama is quickly tested in an INTERNATIONAL CRISIS within 6 months of his election. One in which Joe Biden says Obama's supporters will NOT be happy about. Hmmm......just another day in OZ
Tax truth
It is amazing how Marxisant radical Barack Obama gets away with campaigning on how he will give a tax break to 95% of Americans when his record shows that he has voted for tax increases 300 times as a state senator and 94 times as a US Senator.
But, he's not alone.
Most Democrats believe in "spreading the wealth around."
Dem Leader Barney Frank of Fannie Mae fame announced yesterday that "there should be tax increases" and that "there are plenty of rich people we could tax."
But, he's not alone.
Most Democrats believe in "spreading the wealth around."
Dem Leader Barney Frank of Fannie Mae fame announced yesterday that "there should be tax increases" and that "there are plenty of rich people we could tax."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Michelle Obama and Saul Alinskey
Here's a test. Who said or wrote the following quotes and when?
Person 1: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
Person 1: _______________________
When: _________________________
Person 2: "Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about the world as it is and the world as it should be. And he said that all too often we accept the distance between the two and settle for the world as it is, even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves, to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be.
[ . . . ] All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do. That we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope."
Person 2: _______________________
When: _________________________
Person 1: Sol Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," 1972
Person 2: Michelle Obama, Democrat National Convention, 2008
(wizbangblog.com)
Person 1: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
Person 1: _______________________
When: _________________________
Person 2: "Barack stood up that day and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about the world as it is and the world as it should be. And he said that all too often we accept the distance between the two and settle for the world as it is, even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves, to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be.
[ . . . ] All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do. That we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope."
Person 2: _______________________
When: _________________________
Person 1: Sol Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," 1972
Person 2: Michelle Obama, Democrat National Convention, 2008
(wizbangblog.com)
JFK on character
26 years ago today:
“I believe the old Emersonian advice that what you are speaks far louder than what you say is the best possible advice in judging a political campaign.”
–John F. Kennedy
October 19, 1962
Think about it!
“I believe the old Emersonian advice that what you are speaks far louder than what you say is the best possible advice in judging a political campaign.”
–John F. Kennedy
October 19, 1962
Think about it!
Obama PRO abortion act 1st act as President
Obama has forcefully vowed that his very first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). FOCA claims a "fundamental right" to abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and no government body at any level would be able to "deny or interfere with" this right. Even the pro-choice NOW readily acknowledges that FOCA would literally "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
Obama has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Obama has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Biden predicts 'manufacturered international crisis' for Obama
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities.
Great.....a disaster is inevitable and Obama will be at the helm.....we're sunk.
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities.
Great.....a disaster is inevitable and Obama will be at the helm.....we're sunk.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama a Brand
From Dr. Lynette Long, democrat and former Clinton supporter: "Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, t-shirts, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every one of his elections. Obama the brand is for women’s rights while Obama the man marginalizes women and his supporters wear Sarah Palin is a cunt t-shirts. Obama the brand is pro-Israel, Obama the man is not. Obama the brand touts leadership while Obama the man voted present 130 times in the US Senate. Obama the Brand claims change, while Obama the man picks a Washington insider as his running mate. Obama the Brand loves America, but many of Obama the man’s associates hate America. Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listened for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. Obama the man and Obama the Brand are not one in the same. If elected Obama the man will make the decisions, not Obama the Brand." http://www.lynettelong.com/ from New Mexico speech this weekend
Be AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID
If you wonder what an Obama Presidency would be like then all you need to do is look at the tactics run in this campaign. Obama 'truth' squads squashing free speech and the right to disagree, massive multi-state voter FRAUD and stealing this election, privacy attacks on Governor Palin and now the ordinary citizen asking a simple question...Joe the Plumber. If the media spent the time it has in looking into every detail of Obama's life like they did Joe the Plumber then Hilary would be a sure in for President now. Obama was never vetted as vigourously as Palin OR Joe the Plumber. We still don't have Obama's school records, ACTUAL birth certificate, why he has plagarized speeches of candidates from 4 years ago, his iffy personal connections, and the list could go on.....Everything Obama is hands-off....everything about YOU the citizen is fair game.......THAT is frightening.....it does not bode well for the future of this country.
No free speech, no right to question the anointed one, no right to dissent, stuffing the ballot box, wanting only the media that likes the anointed one (Obama boohoos every chance he gets about Fox news while NYT, WP, MSNBC, CBS, ABC,CNN, etc are ALL in the tank for him)...we might as well live in Russia....
People ignore the obvious. It isn't about Joe...it is about what Obama SAID...and what he said is that his plan is MARXISM...pure and simple. yep, Obama is RED
No free speech, no right to question the anointed one, no right to dissent, stuffing the ballot box, wanting only the media that likes the anointed one (Obama boohoos every chance he gets about Fox news while NYT, WP, MSNBC, CBS, ABC,CNN, etc are ALL in the tank for him)...we might as well live in Russia....
People ignore the obvious. It isn't about Joe...it is about what Obama SAID...and what he said is that his plan is MARXISM...pure and simple. yep, Obama is RED
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama's Acorn connection from his website
pulled this off Obama’s own website:
When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, “I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That’s what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That’s the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
Even the liberal Obama owned "Factcheck.org responded after the debate:
He did, but that wasn't his only involvement. He also worked closely with ACORN's Chicago office when he ran a Project Vote registration drive after law school, and Obama did some leadership training for Chicago ACORN. The Woods Fund, where Obama served as a board member, gave grants to ACORN's Chicago branch; both organizations are concerned with disadvantaged populations in that city. And during the primaries of this election, Obama's campaign paid upwards of $800,000 to the ACORN-affiliated Campaign Services Inc. for get-out-the-vote efforts (not voter registration). Those services were initially misrepresented on the campaign's Federal Election Commission reports, an error that some find suspicious and others say is par for the course. ACORN's Chicago office and CSI have not been under investigation."
another debate LIE exposed and so easy to google duh!
When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, “I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That’s what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That’s the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
Even the liberal Obama owned "Factcheck.org responded after the debate:
He did, but that wasn't his only involvement. He also worked closely with ACORN's Chicago office when he ran a Project Vote registration drive after law school, and Obama did some leadership training for Chicago ACORN. The Woods Fund, where Obama served as a board member, gave grants to ACORN's Chicago branch; both organizations are concerned with disadvantaged populations in that city. And during the primaries of this election, Obama's campaign paid upwards of $800,000 to the ACORN-affiliated Campaign Services Inc. for get-out-the-vote efforts (not voter registration). Those services were initially misrepresented on the campaign's Federal Election Commission reports, an error that some find suspicious and others say is par for the course. ACORN's Chicago office and CSI have not been under investigation."
another debate LIE exposed and so easy to google duh!
Freedom of speech is DEAD DEAD DEAD
It is appalling to consider the state of our country. The liberal media has lost its mind, not to mention any sense of dignity. Joe 'the plumber' did the unthinkable. He asked the almighty anointed Obama a legitimate question and now he is being vilified and dissected in the media. The offensive Daily Kos (a slimebag liberal rag) has gone as far as printing Joe's address, phone number, and other PERSONAL AND PRIVATE information on its website. Other rags, including the NYT, has stepped over the line and done the same.
When did Freedom of speech die in this country? The day the LEFT decided to anoint Obama for President. Every freedom we have in this country is being yanked from us in the blink of an eye. No one can disagree with the Anointed One. No one can print, speak, question the Anointed One without fear of reprisal.
This should scare anyone thinking that Obama will be for change of HOPE in this country. Change for sure, but not change you will want. All of our personal rights will be gone. What is being done to Joe the Plumber is a travesty.
We now know more about Joe the Plumber than we do about the Anointed One. Obama has REFUSED to submitt an authentic birth certificate. He has REFUSED to release ANY school records. We know only what he wants us to know and the answers change almost daily. Every bit of his past has been carefully orchestrated and every relationship has been reduced to a political soundbite. No truth....just carefully rehearsed rhetoric....
He blatantly LIED during the debate. Amazing since his lies are easily a matter of public record. The truth is that Obama does not know the truth. His preacher said it best. This politician will say and do anything to get elected. Even if that means tearing down the very people he professes to care about. Don't be fooled. Obama is in it for HIM. Your taxes WILL be raised to pay for those free abortions and welfare gifts to the those who filed to vote 73 times. Your income will be distributed to those who are the ultimate slaves....those on the dole. Free speech, free press, free market society is dead......I don't even think it will rest in peace. I know that I won't......
When did Freedom of speech die in this country? The day the LEFT decided to anoint Obama for President. Every freedom we have in this country is being yanked from us in the blink of an eye. No one can disagree with the Anointed One. No one can print, speak, question the Anointed One without fear of reprisal.
This should scare anyone thinking that Obama will be for change of HOPE in this country. Change for sure, but not change you will want. All of our personal rights will be gone. What is being done to Joe the Plumber is a travesty.
We now know more about Joe the Plumber than we do about the Anointed One. Obama has REFUSED to submitt an authentic birth certificate. He has REFUSED to release ANY school records. We know only what he wants us to know and the answers change almost daily. Every bit of his past has been carefully orchestrated and every relationship has been reduced to a political soundbite. No truth....just carefully rehearsed rhetoric....
He blatantly LIED during the debate. Amazing since his lies are easily a matter of public record. The truth is that Obama does not know the truth. His preacher said it best. This politician will say and do anything to get elected. Even if that means tearing down the very people he professes to care about. Don't be fooled. Obama is in it for HIM. Your taxes WILL be raised to pay for those free abortions and welfare gifts to the those who filed to vote 73 times. Your income will be distributed to those who are the ultimate slaves....those on the dole. Free speech, free press, free market society is dead......I don't even think it will rest in peace. I know that I won't......
conservative swings....except in the USA
While the USA seems on the brink of electing the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR EVER...most of our leading allies have taken a conservative swing in recent elections...Canada being the most recent.
"Mark Steyn put it earlier this week:
If Obama is elected in November, at G7 meetings, for the first time since they began, America will have a more left-wing leader than any other member of the group - Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Britain (and that’s before Gordon Brown loses to David Cameron). Right-of-center government throughout the western world - except Washington.
"Mark Steyn put it earlier this week:
If Obama is elected in November, at G7 meetings, for the first time since they began, America will have a more left-wing leader than any other member of the group - Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Britain (and that’s before Gordon Brown loses to David Cameron). Right-of-center government throughout the western world - except Washington.
Obama PRO-abortionist....not just pro-choice
I can't state this better than this author can so here is the article:
"Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
October 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
"Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
October 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! ''pro-choice''-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.'' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that ''abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'' No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ''that question is above my pay grade.'' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)