Final Election Thoughts

As we near the election, it is time to lay out the the reasons why I will not vote for Obama.


The Constitution: Obama has made several disturbing comments about the Constitution. Funny thing, is the president is suppose to swear to uphold the Constitution. No, he wont be able to wave a magic wand and change it/usher in a new one. But he will be able to slowly chisel away at it (as previous presidents have done). I fear the loss of freedom. I fear the loss of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I fear radical agendas will be pushed that will regulate what can be said, read, listened to, and thought about. Not directly. Just a slow chiseling away of our liberties.

Gun rights. Every chance that Obama has had he has voted against private gun ownership. Obama says he wont touch your guns, but his voting record speaks differently.

Abortion. Obama has the most radical view on abortion of any candidate to seek the office of the presidency. Even babies who survive an abortion don’t have a right to personhood.

Taxation and the budget: Obama has pledged to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but has also promised hundreds of billions in new spending. Both cannot exist. Sure obama has promised to cut programs, but it just doesn’t add up. What he isn’t telling you is he may cut taxes on families, but he will raise it on their places of employment and others products and goods. Guess what. That will trickle down and you’ll pay it anyway either at the store or through losing your job.

Jobs. I believe Obama plans to raise taxes on big corporations and those who are “too wealthy.” The loss of income and revenue will trickle down and result in layoffs and even more outsourcing as it becomes too expensive for companies to do pay Obama’s taxes. Not to mention the new corporate taxes will trickle down to the middle class who cannot afford their every day needs as it is. Funny thing is, it will be a lot of union-driven companies, whose union members voted for him that get shut down.

Energy. I admire Obama’s pledge to make the U,S, energy independent in 10 years, but he is dreaming. The whole entire U.S. economy is built off of oil, virtually all of which comes from overseas. You need much longer than 10 years to completing change the infrastructure of an entire nation and economy. Millions of gas stations and tens of millions of cars would need to be phased out. This would take longer than 25 years. Not to mention first you need to come up with a suistanable energy source to take the place of oil. So how do you pay for it?

You could raise taxes of car companies, oil companies, coal companies, and gas. However that would have to be a drastic tax increase and it would trickle down to hard working Americans and truly kill the economy and eliminate jobs. I.E. evil energy companies will cease to exist in America resulting in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs (think of all those union-driven coal mines and coal plants through out the U.S.). And they wont be able to magically transfer over to new energy jobs the next day. It will take time. A gradual phase out is needed. Not an immediate bankrupting of the energy market which will lead to an economic collapse. I am for preserving the environment, but not while having the u.S. economy evaporate with it.

National Security. I do not think Obama has what it takes to survive on the international scene. Being an international leader takes more than good rhetoric and tea parties with national leaders. Obama may half to face tensions, crisises, and leaders who do not like him very much. When he has to meet with the like of Chavez, Putin, and Ahmadinejad. Will he be able to stand up to them? Or will he be pushed around like a wheelbarrow? I’ll go with the latter. I fera he will fail miserably when tested by fire on the international scene.

8. Of the most important tasks of a president is to appoint judges. Judges who will implement, uphold, and destroy laws. What kinda of judges will Obama appoint? Ones who will serve to protect the rights of all Americans or judges who will push a radically liberal agenda and continue to shake up this nation? I fear he will appoint judges who will shove an agenda down our throats whether we like it or not.


Now before anyone says…but…but…but McCain will do that too! Yes, he probably will, but not as bad. And unfortunately, we have a monopoly of political power between these two parties. Therefore, tomorrow I will vote for the lesser of two evils.

Should Obama be added to Mount Rushmore?

Obama will bankrupt the energy market

Obama will bankrupt the energy market

Comrade Obama?

October 31, 2008 PJB: Comrade Obama? By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I’ve ever seen. Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks. If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the “Communist Manifesto” of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful.

Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor. “Spread the wealth,” Barack admonished Joe the Plumber. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief. West: “You may recognize this famous quote: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen.

Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” Biden: “Are you joking? Is this a joke?” Biden’s better defense, however, might have be the “Tu quoque!” retort: “You, too!” — the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy. Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor? Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system? Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms. Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born? In his 1938 essay “The Revolution Was,” Garet Garrett wrote: “There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom.” Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it — to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called “the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed.” And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama’s words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001? He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about “redistributive change” in society, of the “tragedy” of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the “political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” Normal people don’t talk like that. Socialists do. This is ideology speaking.

This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the “Marxist professors” Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger. Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212182916.shtml

CBS News: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges

Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he's made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don't add up. Obama has already proposed a new stimulus package of $188 billion over two years. His tax cuts will cost $85 billion a year. His "army of new teachers": $18 billion; Renewable energy: $15 billion. CBS News and various independent experts estimate Obama's total first year spending could exceed $280 billion. Still Obama repeated his claim he can find the money to pay for every proposal. "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost," he has said. The fact is the savings Obama has identified do not cover his spending.

According to a CBS News estimate, he's around $90 billion short. The Obama campaign disputes this, saying everything including the stimulus is paid for over 10 years. But other analysts say - even presuming Obama saves money in Iraq and chops the federal budget as promised - he falls short. Let's break all of this down, starting with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.

Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper? And that's just the beginning of what Obama would spend.

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he's addressing. Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once. Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed.

If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml

"Vote Obama, I need the money"

Redistribution Plan may take a while

Yesterday on my way to lunch at Olive Garden, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in Olive Garden my waiter had on an "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

Obama on the Constitutionality of Redistribution

The Obama Cult

Some folks cry. Others faint. Some pledge their allegiance. Some are blown away. Some give him a messianic treatment. Crowds have applauded when he has stopped to blow his nose. At the University of Texas, crowds sang Obama-leluja. Some have compared him to Jesus Christ himself. Some folks, like Chris Matthews, get a thrill running through his legs. It seems many believe the rise of Barack Obama is a god-ordained moment in time.
So many are ready to pledge their undying allegiance without question to this mere politician who is above reproach.

The cult like following pledged to this mere man just creeps me out. I like to call these folks Obamamunists.

Obama has promised to be a new kind of politician. One who will rise above partisanship and bring a new era of hope and change. He has promised to be a reformer and a new kind of leader. Make no mistake about it, he is a charismatic and powerful rhetorician.

But what has Obama done to prove he is worthy of such unwavering allegiance and trust? Make no mistake about it, President Bush has been one of the worst presidents in American history. But how can people be so ready to usher in someone based on his mere words without examining his agenda and his policies? What has Barack Obama the politician done to make some folks believe so strongly in him? What has he done that makes some believe he will bring true and meaningful reform? What in his voting record makes one believe so strongly in him? What bills has he authored and championed in the Senate that solidify his qualification? Why is the man so far above reproach?

Barack Obama remains a phenomenon. So many people speak and act as though the election of this mere man will be the most significant act the country, if not the world, has ever expierenced. And they blindly accept that to be a good thing.

However, inspiration is one thing, but this cult-like following is quite another.
And while there should be enthusiasm in politics, the messianic fervor pledged to this politician has been sickening. What will happen when Obama needs to make tough decisions? What will happen when Barack Obama needs to make a stand? What will happen when the rhetoric of the “Hope” and “Change” fade away and the euphoric chants of “yes we can” are not enough to get the job done?

Biden guarantees Obama will be tested by a crisis

Did you hear Joe Biden today?

“Mark my words...watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision. Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

That is exactly what I am afraid of folks. These are tough times we are entering. And when you cast a vote, you better be sure as hell you are placing your confidence and your future in the right hands.

Joe went on to say “Mark my words, quoting, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John F. Kennedy.”

We all know what that was. The Cuban Missile Crisis. Anyone who was alive during that time would tell you how frightening those times were. The big line here is “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John F. Kennedy”

Let’s be honest. Times are tough. We as a nation have lived way beyond our means for decades lead by our government who has been a borrow and spend government. Our national debt is outrageous. We are fighting two wars. We have a housing crisis. We have a financial crisis. It wouldn’t take much to have a real energy crisis. And we are only at the tip of the iceberg I believe. It is the perfect storm on the horizon.

Joe Biden’s words do not shock me and regardless of who is right, there is a good chance the next president will have a crisis on his hands. And if elected, Joe Biden is right. Obama’s mentality and strength as a leader will be tested by fire. Joe Biden hypothetically spoke of 4 or 5 scenarios which could be in play. Joe Biden has promised that Obama’s response will not be popular and has asked the American people to commit to standing by him.

Is America ready to make such a promise to this youthful Senator? Here is the fun part. He mentioned that conflicts with Russian or in the Middle East could be one scenario.

So let’s outline a few possibilities.

1). Iran: they attack Israel and/or launch a nuclear missile. Barack either does nothing (very disconcerting and Americans cower in fear) or Barack fires back (imagine all the anti-war Pro-Obammunists). Either one of those options would be costly and very unpopular.

2). Russia attacks (again) beginning a soviet resurrection and Obama gets pushed around by Putin like a wheelbarrow.

3). Israel pulls a pre-emptive strike on Iran and Barack condemns Israel and stands by while countries go to war with Israel (very unpopular).

4). Iran runs a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and oil no longer goes out. Talk about an energy crisis. If you think $5.00 a gallon gas is bad, you haven’t seen nothing yet. Barack Obama sees this as the perfect opportunity to do nothing and become energy independent overnight, rather than over a 10 year period. That would be very unpopular (and lead to an epic collapse of Western civilization), because you know Americans hate nothing more than filling up their gas tank, especially if it means cutting back on Starbucks drinks.

5). One world currency? No I am not a left behind pre-millennialist. But countries are starting to call for it. Russia is. China is. France is.

6). Maybe just the president who presides over the melt-down of Western Civilization. Great…

Biden suddenly changed his tune. Gone were the words of hope and change.

Quote: “I guarantee you, you are going to be saying, oh, my God, why are they there in the polls. I guarantee you, you are going to be saying, oh, my God, why are they there in the polls, We're going to need your influence because the little people will disagree with it,…”

The media is obligated to press Obama on this enormous claim. Biden opened a can of worms that needed to be opened. Hard times are coming and the president will make very unpopular decisions, we have been promised this. This could be the real change that comes to America and Biden doesn’t seem to paint to hopeful of a picture.

Are you ready to answer Biden’s call and promise to support Obama no matter how unpopular of a decision he makes and how it affects us? Are you ready to watch his poll numbers drop lower than Bush’s and still stand by him? Because that is exactly what Biden is asking the Obammunists to do.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

Barack Obama’s Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc

Make no mistake about. Barack Obama is the most radical abortion extremist that has ever sought the presidency, or any political office in the United States.

Under his presidency you can be guaranteed that he will have an abortion agenda more radical than this nation has seen before. This will be most evident, but not exclusive, to the judges he appoints.

Barack Obama promises to move this country forward. He promises to bring progress. He promises to bring change.

Barack Obama has stated that the first thing he will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8). The Freedom of Choice Act, would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. This is just some of the change and progress the Barack Obama promises. Obama appears posed to pursue infanticideas a fundamental right to American women, essentially marking these children as Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc— lives unworthy of life.

It gets worse. We have partial birth infanticide, which is the practice of delivering the human being ¾ of the way feet first, and than jamming a pair of Meyzenbaum scissors into the skull of the baby (which is still in the womb mind you), open the scissors and than proceed to suck the human being’s brains out.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has upheld the ban on this infanticidal procedure. However, that did not stop Barack Obama from condemning the high court.

“I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women” (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK).

Now Barack Obama in recent speeches and debates has expressed favor for seeking ways to cut back on abortions without infringing on the woman’s right to infanticide. However, Barack Obama has opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, which sought to provide coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and inform women upon their consent about the effects of an abortion one human being who is supposedly Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life. Is such an agenda really hopeful, progressive, and the change you want?

Oh and then there is the “Born alive Act.” Barack Obama can be quoted as saying “It mandated lifesaving measures, but also extended ‘personhood’ to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe V. Wade.” (Barack Obama, the Audacity of Hope, 132).

This murderous quote is from the monster himself defending his opposition to The Born Alive act, which would have granted personhood to human beings who survived an abortion. It appears as though Barack Obama believes such “pre-viable fetuses” are Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life. To be fair I must note that the issue has since become federal law, but it wasn’t at this time and according to prosecutors and the attorney general in Illinois, this practice was legal. However, when Obama, was speaking against it, the practice was legal in his home state.

Mind you, this legislation, contrary to what Barack Obama says only applies to after a failed infanticide! It does nothing for the initial abortion! This legislation came into play because at Christ Hospital, in Chicago, these “pre-viable fetuses” who were born and survived an abortion were discarded like medical waste while alive! For Barack Obama, “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” (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml)

Why is Barack Obama unwilling to grant basic human rights to a living breathing baby outside the womb? Because they were already marked for abortion and are Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life.

Barack Obama argued that “Whenever we define an pre-viable fetus as a person protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kind of protections that would provide a child—a nine month old child that was delivered to term.” (Illinois 92 General Assembly, March 31, 2001).

Many Christians and other anti-infanticide citizens believe life begins at conception. But that is not what Barack Obama believes. No. He doesn’t even believe life beings at birth. No he believes being in the womb for 9 months and than being successfully born (not by a failed abortion) is when life truly begins. As a result, one could legitimately question if babies born premature would have a right to life under Obama or if they would be Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life.



Make no mistake about. Barack Obama is the most radical abortion extremist that has ever sought the presidency, or any political office in the United States.

Under his presidency you can be guaranteed that he will have an abortion agenda more radical than this nation has seen before. This will be most evident, but not exclusive, to the judges he appoints.

Barack Obama promises to move this country forward. He promises to bring progress. He promises to bring change.

Barack Obama has stated that the first thing he will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8). The Freedom of Choice Act, would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. This is just some of the change and progress the Barack Obama promises. Obama appears posed to pursue infanticideas a fundamental right to American women, essentially marking these children as Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc— lives unworthy of life.

It gets worse. We have partial birth infanticide, which is the practice of delivering the human being ¾ of the way feet first, and than jamming a pair of Meyzenbaum scissors into the skull of the baby (which is still in the womb mind you), open the scissors and than proceed to suck the human being’s brains out.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has upheld the ban on this infanticidal procedure. However, that did not stop Barack Obama from condemning the high court.

“I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women” (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CZsK).

Now Barack Obama in recent speeches and debates has expressed favor for seeking ways to cut back on abortions without infringing on the woman’s right to infanticide. However, Barack Obama has opposed the Pregnant Women Support Act, which sought to provide coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and inform women upon their consent about the effects of an abortion one human being who is supposedly Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life. Is such an agenda really hopeful, progressive, and the change you want?

Oh and then there is the “Born alive Act.” Barack Obama can be quoted as saying “It mandated lifesaving measures, but also extended ‘personhood’ to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe V. Wade.” (Barack Obama, the Audacity of Hope, 132).

This murderous quote is from the monster himself defending his opposition to The Born Alive act, which would have granted personhood to human beings who survived an abortion. It appears as though Barack Obama believes such “pre-viable fetuses” are Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life. To be fair I must note that the issue has since become federal law, but it wasn’t at this time and according to prosecutors and the attorney general in Illinois, this practice was legal. However, when Obama, was speaking against it, the practice was legal in his home state.

Mind you, this legislation, contrary to what Barack Obama says only applies to after a failed infanticide! It does nothing for the initial abortion! This legislation came into play because at Christ Hospital, in Chicago, these “pre-viable fetuses” who were born and survived an abortion were discarded like medical waste while alive! For Barack Obama, “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” (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml)

Why is Barack Obama unwilling to grant basic human rights to a living breathing baby outside the womb? Because they were already marked for abortion and are Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life.

Barack Obama argued that “Whenever we define an pre-viable fetus as a person protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kind of protections that would provide a child—a nine month old child that was delivered to term.” (Illinois 92 General Assembly, March 31, 2001).

Many Christians and other anti-infanticide citizens believe life begins at conception. But that is not what Barack Obama believes. No. He doesn’t even believe life beings at birth. No he believes being in the womb for 9 months and than being successfully born (not by a failed abortion) is when life truly begins. As a result, one could legitimately question if babies born premature would have a right to life under Obama or if they would be Lebt Unwürdig Von Lebenc—lives unworthy of life.

The Great Obama Gun Grab

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate
CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture.

While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner.

At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun.

And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?

By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.

In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know.

http://www.isra.org/

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

Liberals Rethink Free Speech

By Rich Lowry

Barack Obama has already brought change. He's ended the "chilling effect."
Any restrictions on speech -- real or imagined -- were once inevitably deemed to have a "chilling effect" on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren't so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a "chilling effect" were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union's absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.

But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the Right are increasingly worried about overreaching rules against "hate speech" defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds. Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country's imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech in federal law and banning speech on college campuses. The Left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.

Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued "Obama Action Wire" alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No "chilling effect" here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama's detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp's tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.

When an outside group ran TV ads pointing out links between Obama and the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign asked the Bush Justice Department -- yes, that Bush Justice Department, the fount of all evil -- to open a criminal investigation.
The Obama campaign's effort dovetails with the work of an outfit called Accountable America, run by a former MoveOn.org operative. It is devoted to threatening conservative donors with legal action and exposure of any embarrassing details of their private lives if they give money to groups running ads against Obama. The New York Times account says the group hopes to create "a chilling effect," but the phrase is used non-pejoratively.

Liberal editorial boards have apparently lost their former zest for the First Amendment. Consider this approving sentence from a New York Times editorial: "The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked -- for now -- by a federal judge in Virginia." It was written about a judge denying an injunction against the Federal Election Commission sought by a pro-life group running radio ads attacking Obama. The group thinks the First Amendment protects political speech; unfortunately, the courts disagree.

But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group's advertising is "lies," then urges the FEC to "be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies." Here's a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn't like.

It's all just a taste of what's to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. "Hate is not a family value" was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.

America's partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there's something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama's professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he's never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.

Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the "worst people in the world."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/liberals_rethink_free_speech.html

Obama and the Financial Crisis

So I have been listening closely to Obama thoughts on the current financial crisis and he has been casting quit few stones and pointing quite a few fingers lately. One of his major points was that the economic crisis has been caused by Washington and Wall Street through their greed and deregulation. Guess what? I agree with the Senator. I strongly believe that the greed and irresponsibility of bankers and politicians got us in this mess.

While Obama decries Wahsington’s corruption and chastises them for refusing to regulate the financial industry, he has been in bed with some of the most troubled mortgage banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over already by the U.S. Treasury after they collapsed because they were “too big to fail” after suffering losses of approximately $14 billion, while owning $5 Trillion in mortgages. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122064650145404781.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)The Freddie and Fannie bail out is estimated to cost the American tax payers up to $100 billion dollars or more. (http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2008/20080917073634.aspx)

Freddie and Fannie used their lobbying budgets to keep the feds off their backs and avoid any form of reasonable regulation. Barack Obama was the seconded largest recipient of political donations from these failed institutions. Fannie and Freddie gave $126,349.00 to Obama and $21,550.00 to McCain. (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html)

It seems while Obama is at the front of the line for criticizing Washington and Wall Street, he was also at the front of the line when the mortgage industry was giving out money. Oh and it gets worse.James Johnson, the CEO of Fannie Mae in the 90’s eared 21 million dollars in his final year with the company. He received $7 Million in questionable real estate loans from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. He was the head of Obama’s Vice Presidential Selection committee and when his corruption became public he voluntarily stepped down. (http://www.nysun.com/national/top-talent-scout-for-obama-tied-to-subprime-lender/79579)

Franklin Raines a former Fannie May executive is Obama’s current housing advisor. According to the NY times, Raines was forced to give up $15.6 million in stock options for his roll in manipulating Fannie Mae’s earnings (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/business/19fannie.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222910058-IMdaxFh2tN7hSsZcI3mLCg).

And we cannot forget Jamie Gorelick, the former Clinton administration deputy attorney general. She was also a Fannie Mae vice chairman and accused in having a roll in falsifying transactions to manipulate the record books to meet the 1998 earnings targets. Despite having no financial experience, she served as chairwoman from 1997 to 2003, during which Fannie Mae developed a $10 Billion accounting scandal. These moves, triggered multi-million dollar bonuses for company executives. She has been rumored to be Obama’s choice for attorney general. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32845-2005Apr6.html)

While I am at it, let’s throw in Penny Pritzker. She is currently Obama’s finance chairwoman and helped to finance his 2002 senate campaign. Prior to her position on Obama’s campaign, she served as chairwoman of Superior Bank. In 2000, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition accused the bank of providing sub-prime loans to individuals at a rate far exceeding other institutions. The FDIC ruled “Superior Bank suffered as a result of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market.” (http://164.109.59.122/docs/7/77151.html) The Pritzker family settled at $460 million dollars. All this happened on her watch. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-02-subprime_N.htm)

It appears that while Obama decries the deregulation, he has placed some of the same bankers who got us into this mess on his campaign staff. Either Obama is a terrible judge in character or is just as corrupt as those he accuses of corruption. How can you claim to be separate from all this corruption, but at the same time have failed executives and crooks sitting on your campaign path?! How?! Thieves belong in jail, not on a campaign staff! Maybe Obama should clean out his own closet before he throws stones at others. It is ludicrous to promise reform, regulation, and to punish those who caused this corruption while these corrupt bankers sit on your campaign staff and advise you! It is dishonest to blame bad financial practices in the lending industry only to accept over $100,000.00 dollars from such an institution. You can either believe Barack Obama’s words or you can believe Barack Obama’s actions, but you cannot believe both. It is facts such as this that cause me to completely doubt and distrust the authenticity of Barack Obama. I cannot understand why or how Obama can select advisors who hurt the ordinary hard working Americans he claims to stand up for.