Monday, October 27, 2008

Your Pie, Not My Pie

Are you and Obama really a match?

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.

This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.

(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.

Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

Taxable Income






Tax: Single






Tax: Married - Filing Joint






Tax: Married - Filing Separate






Tax: Head of Household






Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

Taxable Income






Tax: Single






Tax: Married - Filing Joint






Tax: Married - Filing Separate






Tax: Head of Household






Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income

2000 Tax Tables

2003 Tax Tables

2004 Tax Tables

2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)

Increase with Obama Tax Increase*

Taxable Income






Tax: Single






Tax: Married - Filing Joint






Tax: Married - Filing Separate






Tax: Head of Household






* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Obama and the Dems want to TAX your 401k!!!

Are you being responsible and trying to plan for your own retirement? Well Obama and the Democrats want to punish you for it. Not only by taking away your 401K tax breaks but they also want to ADD a TAX on top of that. Punish those who are trying to do for themselves so they can spread your wealth around to those to lazy to do for themselves. Don't fall for the line that you will get a tax break under Obama and only those making over $250,000 a year will see their taxes go up....IT IS A LIE! If you work for a living and make more than minimum wage you better plan on paying HIGHER TAXES if Obama is in the White House.

House Democrats: Abolish 401k Tax Breaks, Create New Tax

What do Democrats do when they see a system or program that isn't working? They throw more money at it, or recreate the same system under another name, or both.

Social Security (or rather, Socialist Security) has been revealed as the glorified government-mandated ponzi scheme that it is, and the Democrats answer is to create another version of it.

Workforce Management says House Democrats are looking at another plan to tighten the goverment's grip on your life, your retirement, and take a bigger chunk of your paycheck.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

So the Dems want to take away the tax breaks for 401ks...and tax you yet another 5%???

And this idiotic program would be nothing more than a Social Security spinoff. It's just more of the same government-mandated socialist ineptitude.

The definition of "reform" in the Democrat playbook is ludicrous. Keep doing things that don't work. Come up with new ways to do the same things that don't work. Tax more. It'll all be fine.

We need to end that--now.


Thursday, October 16, 2008

It Is NOT Over, DON'T Lose Hope!!!

Forward this, spread the message, don't let the main stream media write off John McCain....this race is NOT OVER!!!

Gallup: Obama 49 percent, McCain 47

A new Gallup Poll of likely voters has Democrat Barack Obama with a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain.

That puts McCain closer in the presidential race than other polls, which have Obama with leads of between 3 and 14 percentage points, according to Real Clear Politics.

McCain has sought in recent days to sharpen his economic message and questioning Obama’s ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers. The Gallup poll was conducted among 2,100 likely voters.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008


Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

October 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

"It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.

"This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now," he said in Pennsylvania.

"My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."

Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.


More from the article

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

With the state of our economy can we really afford Barack Obama's socialist vision for America?

Obama Wants Your Daughter To Register For Draft!

Candidates differ on female draft
Monday, October 13, 2008

Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft.

But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn't think women should have to register.

Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not.


This does nothing more than make the next difficult decision of sending our troops into harms way more of an emotional decision than a fact based one and further undermine the effectiveness of our military.

Not the kind of "CHANGE" we are looking for Barack!

Obama Want To Spread Your Wealth Around To Those Behind You

Thursday, October 9, 2008

The Obama Debate Every American Should See

By Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.

Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.

Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.

Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not.

So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.

In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.

"Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

"Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."

He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?

"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."

"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.

O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."

"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is 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 kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - MLK Jr.

How do you think he would judge the content of Barack Obama's character?

Friday, September 26, 2008

Obama Wants to Block Free Speech

I don't know that I have ever witnessed such a blatant abuse of government authority.

According to a story at KMOV TV in St Louis...

KMOV Channel 4’s TV newscast night before last at 6 PM had a story, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are implying that they will bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

This is what we have to look forward to if we allow Barack Obama to get into office, get in power at ANY cost, keep it at ANY cost, their agenda at ANY cost.

Here is my prediction....if Barack Obama is elected, whatever freedoms will still enjoy in this country will be lost to an Obama dictatorship. We can NOT allow Obama into the White House where he will be allowed to take over this country and make Supreme Court appointments that will rape Americans of our remaining freedoms.

Go to the above link, follow it to the video, this is their first step, get in power at ANY cost including silencing our First Amendment rights.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Obama's Ten Point Plan to "Change" The Second Amendment

by Wayne LaPierre

NRA Executive Vice President

For the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, U.N. gun-ban extremist Rebecca Peters and her globalist billionaire sugar-daddy George Soros, for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his horde of big-city politicians—in fact, for all those individuals and organizations who would harm or destroy our Second Amendment rights—Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” means their agenda will be harnessed to the total power of an aggressive, activist and radical federal government.

“Change” means gun owners will be under siege like never before.

Especially for NRA members who fought through the never-ending threats of the Clinton-Gore administration, the understanding of “change” must be the driving force for us to get other gun owners to the polls. This election is critically important. We cannot afford to have any friend of the Second Amendment sit it out, regardless of the reason.

We all know gun owners who are disillusioned with politics. Those influenced by talk of four years of “progressives” in power coalescing a united conservative movement must be reminded that this November, we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government.

With Obama’s emphasis on grassroots organizing, his administration will be a government redesigned and realigned to stay in power. It will be a government converted into a political machine. And with a so-called “progressive” majority in both houses of Congress, there will be little to stop that power shift.

When Obama talks about “change,” the gun-banners at the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign know exactly what change they want—inside power. And they’ll likely get it.


Michelle Obama, in a politically charged college campaign speech in California, defined her husband’s meaning of “change”:

“Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual ...”.

As NRA members, this statement doesn’t bode well for our future. Our “lives as usual” means the daily exercise of our freedom.

And what of “cynicism”? It is the very basis of Americans’ long history of questioning government power and its abuse. It is the basis of challenging dissembling politicians. Cynicism is the key to seeing through politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who falsely wrap themselves in the Second Amendment while espousing dangerous programs for civil disarmament.

And “division”? As NRA members, our “division” from the likes of Obama means we stand together and fight every day against those who would destroy the bedrock principles that have made our country the freest in the world. Divisiveness is the basis of our democratic institutions. Division based on principle is a noble thing.

“Comfort zone”? What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence? That is the real “comfort zone” of all Americans. We are the only nation on earth built on the principle of “pursuit of happiness.” That means we do not serve government; it serves us.

The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’ —seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda. For the nation’s gun owners, “change” will take the form of many steps back to the bad old days of the Clinton-Gore years or the Jimmy Carter years, when bureaucrats in a dozen agencies were relentless in their schemes to press a hostile presidential agenda against gun ownership.

For gun owners, “change” could well mean an erosion of hard-fought reforms and hard-fought protections we have secured over the years. Those reforms represent battles won by gun owners led by NRA since the founding of the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975.

“Change” means removing the restrictions we secured against the Consumer Product Safety Commission from exercising a bureaucratic ban on firearms or ammunition based on phony “consumer hazard” criteria. This is something the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have vainly sought for years.

.. we are not just electing a president, we are electing an entire government

“Change” means ignoring the strictures imposed on federal gun-control enforcement by Congress, like preventing “firearms trace data” from being delivered into the hands of big-city lawyers to fuel punitive lawsuits to strangle the lawful firearms industry. This is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s dream, and it is the “change” demanded by his gun-ban axis of urban politicians.

“Change” means an effort to erase all of the reforms of federal gun laws created when Congress enacted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That law ended a reign of terror by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that, for gun owners and civil libertarians, was the shameful hallmark of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

“Change” means that federal lawyers from multiple agencies with unlimited taxpayer funding will find “creative” ways to bring elements of the law-abiding firearm industry to court, circumventing the restrictions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. As a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against that law, which was designed to end punitive lawsuits claiming firearm industry liability based on totally unrelated acts of armed, violent criminals.

For those who don’t remember, in the waning days of the Bill Clinton presidency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, used the threat of scores of separate lawsuits in many federal venues by city housing authorities to extort a supposedly “voluntary” gun-control agreement from firearm manufacturers. If Obama becomes president, you can bet the farm that bureaucrats will once again use these threats to obtain strictures that Congress would never enact.

In fact, among key advisors chosen by Obama to vet possible running mates is Eric Holder, who was Attorney General Janet Reno’s top deputy. Holder, as the Justice Department point man on all gun-control schemes, was among the top officials announcing the Clinton-Gore extortion agreement in 2000.

The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’—seek is a complete regime change driven by a radical political agenda.

Among the many requirements of that agreement, a crucial one gave key elements of the gun-ban movement total oversight of the firearm industry and an ability to destroy it by running it out of business. None of this would ever have passed Congress as law, yet this stranglehold was achieved through the bureaucratic back door by Bill Clinton’s executive branch.

Backdoor bureaucratic gun-control schemes in the waning days of the Clinton administration also included diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars to HUD “gun buybacks” and gun destruction schemes; and development of so-called “smart gun” technologies and “ballistic fingerprinting.”

The ultimate aim of “smart gun” technology—to prevent a firearm being used by anyone but its registered owner—was spelled out in model legislation first floated in Pennsylvania, which said all handguns that did not possess “smart technology” would become contraband to be collected by police agencies.

All of this was created and pushed through the efforts of bureaucratic lawyers like Obama advisor Holder. Now the ultimate Washington insider lawyer, Holder is being touted as an Obama Supreme Court appointee. Recent headlines can put Holder’s reappearance on the political scene into sharp context. The Journal of the American Bar Association even asks: “Will Eric Holder Become the Next Attorney General?”

“... change” also means using a host of federal government think tanks to create “studies” and white papers intended to spawn new gun-ban laws.

If gun owners don’t vote, that’s likely to happen.

Among the many press briefings Holder ran was the unveiling of the massive Clinton-Gore legislative assault on gun rights in April 1999. At the time, Clinton was pushing for a federally mandated state gun-owner license. That legislative package included a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun; a purchase limit of one handgun a month; and bans on high-capacity magazines.

Thankfully, all of these hostile executive branch threats, including the “voluntary” gun control by extortion, ended abruptly when George W. Bush took office—a fact many people have forgotten. But if Obama captures the White House, the onslaught against our rights will be reopened on many old fronts that have been largely forgotten, as well as in new venues.

You can bet an Obama administration will make a major effort to bureaucratically centralize lawful sales records created under the National Instant Check System, which would be the basis of a universal gun-owner registration system sought by every anti-Second Amendment advocate, public and private. Additionally, you can bet that there will be a major push to criminalize all now-legal sales between private individuals.

“Change” means giving the Center for Disease Control power to once again treat private ownership of firearms as a “disease” treatable by gun control—a power denied by Congress thanks to NRA, but which can quickly be changed. That wacky theory—that guns are a virus to “civil society”—is the basis for Rebecca Peters’ international gun-ban activities. During the Clinton administration, the CDC created a massive propaganda arsenal for the gun-ban movement that still feeds the media. Under Obama, the same is likely to occur.

On that score, “change” also means using a host of federal government think tanks to create “studies” and white papers intended to spawn new gun-ban laws. In the U.S. Justice Department alone, an Obama regime could use the Office of Justice Programs, which includes the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Victims of Crime, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to do its anti-gun bidding. During the Clinton-Gore years, these Justice Department entities produced scores of anti-gun “studies,” many still used today to prop up gun-ban groups’ propaganda.

Further, these agencies and those in other executive departments have millions of dollars in grant-making authority. That is something Obama knows a great deal about. During his tenure as an active member of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama oversaw the distribution of $18 million to gun-ban groups, including major funding for the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Reportedly, Josh Sugarmann’s book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You, which pushed for a national handgun ban, was funded by Obama’s Joyce Foundation board. Before he ran for public office, Obama was considered the prime candidate to lead that deep-pocketed anti-gun money machine.

“Change” also means using the total lobbying and propaganda power of the White House and multiple federal departments to bring back a version of the Clinton gun ban, or to move an F-Troop Congress on any number of gun-control schemes. The presidency is the nation’s most powerful bully pulpit—especially for someone much of the so-called “mainstream” media worships as “the great orator.”

Stop a minute and think about the scope of power we hold in our hands as pro-Second Amendment voters. What we do with that power when we vote in November will determine so much for the future.

The 2008 election will determine who controls:

  • U.S. participation in the anti-gun United Nations;
  • Appointments to the federal courts, including the critical U.S. Supreme Court;
  • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which the Brady Campaign now insists should ban firearms in every place of employment in America;
  • The Department of State, which could give credence and funding to the world gun-ban efforts of Rebecca Peters’ International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). The State Department could negotiate a U.N. global gun-ban treaty that would violate American sovereignty;
  • The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which could force huge changes on hunters and gun owners;
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which today is being petitioned to ban lead bullets for hunting, even in the ubiquitous .22 rimfire;
  • The Environmental Protection Agency, which could conceivably close down shooting ranges throughout the country.

Think about how regulations could be abused through an Obama-led Federal Communications Commission, Federal Election Commission, even Department of Defense, to change the culture of the Second Amendment in America.

When you talk to those who want to sit out this election and let an Obama administration roll into Washington, just pick any agency that covers any area of those people’s lives that they hold dear and point out how Obama’s idea of “change” could affect them. Remind them that we are not electing just a president and vice president—we are electing officials in the entire executive branch, which can be used either to their good, or used for their harm.

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.


FACT: Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of 2 of the 5 Justices that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

Friday, August 22, 2008

Does Obama Meet the Constitutional Qualifications to be Elected President???

This is a news story the MSM hasn't picked up on yet that needs watching!

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

I just learned that a hearing has been scheduled on the matter for 2:00pm today. I have no further details at this time.

It should be noted, though, that the judge assigned to the case--the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick--was appointed to the federal bench by President William Jefferson Clinton.

Keep tuned into America's Right for updates.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

From the Letters to the Editor section of the Richmond Times

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

Friday, August 15, 2008

Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

By Fred Thompson
Thursday, August 14, 2008

My mind goes back to August 2002 in Tbilisi, as I visited Georgia with John McCain. I remember it feeling rather dark and secretive, with the former-Soviet Union’s heavy hand still making its presence felt. President Eduard Shevardnadze, formerly Soviet minister of foreign affairs, presented a friendlier face to the United States, but was beset by economic problems and corruption charges. At the time I did not fully appreciate the power of the democratic impulses that were just beginning to bubble up and would lead to the democratic Georgian government we now see threatened.

What has happened in Georgia since that time should not be surprising to anyone. Certainly Russia has tried to pretty itself up: it renamed the KGB and even gave its 21st century strongman Vladimir Putin a new title.

But for some time we’ve seen Russia sliding back to its authoritarian comfort zone. Murder, imprisonment and property confiscation are back in vogue for any perceived troublemaker. Former Soviet provinces have faced all forms of intimidation, from thuggish trade shakedowns to cyber attacks that shut down communications with the outside world. And whether a former satellite like Poland or a longtime western ally like Germany, Russia has made overt threats over plans to bring eastern European countries into NATO or to deploy a U.S.-provided missile defense system.

Russia is not above using anything at its disposal to make its point. It is a wealthy nation, built on a petro-economy that provides oil and gas to dependent European nations, which are petrified of having their energy supplies disrupted and are now in their own economic doldrums.

Given all this, Russia’s incursion into Georgia is a logical extension of Putin’s autocratic words and deeds and Russia’s regional ambitions, which must be leaving those nations closest to Russia’s borders – the Baltic states and Ukraine – nervous about a bitter and uneasy winter.

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians. So do we threaten Russia with denial of the membership in the World Trade Organization that it so covets? Do we expedite Georgia and the Ukraine’s entry into NATO? Do we cut off the tens of millions that we send into Russia to – hopefully – provide for security of nuclear materials? Everything should be on the table.

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with, let alone feel rewarded for, this invasion of a sovereign democratic nation that has also loyally supported coalition efforts in Iraq.

While this crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced. By now most Americans appreciate the dangers of international terrorism and the fact that a small number of people can wreck unimaginable havoc upon our country and our people if they get their hands on the right kinds of weaponry. What is less understood is that some of the older, traditional kinds of threats are still very much with us, only heightened because of the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapon technologies.

Who wasn’t impressed by the sea of Chinese performers, smiling and perfectly synchronized at the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics, demonstrating to the world their discipline and “organizational skills”? Or their ability to present to TV viewers beautiful fireworks displays that don’t really exist? What isn’t an illusion is that China is engaged in a rapid military buildup, the extent of which we do not know. With hundreds of missiles pointed toward Taiwan, experts say China is developing the capability to take Taiwan before the U. S. has the ability to respond.

Pakistan and India are still belligerently staring each other down over Kashmir. Both countries, of course, have nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan is of questionable stability with a segment of its intelligence community supportive of the Taliban.

The Iranian nuclear threat proceeds apace.

As Iraq stabilizes and our role there is reduced, there will continue to be a major debate within the United States as to how we deal with this increasingly dangerous world of new threats as well as old ones. Our military is stretched thin and worn down and it is clear to anyone who takes the time to study the matter that we cannot get by with the expenditure of 4% of our GDP on our military. The threats to our country are going to require a much more dedicated response. To what extent should we fill the role that we have filled pretty much since the end of World War II as the No. 1 friend of democracy and provider of stability in the world? How much in the way of resources are we going to be willing to devote to this endeavor?

The isolationist tendencies of the Democrats are not limited to trade agreements. Many are tired of the war in Iraq and will want to use any “peace dividend” on domestic purposes as future demands of our entitlement programs become more and more apparent.

Little help can be expected from our friends in Europe no matter how much it appears that their own interests are at stake. European countries spend even less of their GDP on their own defense than we do. They continue to trade with Iran, refusing to impose tough sanctions as Iran develops its nuclear capabilities. These are the weak reeds on which many would have us lean in our effort to fight global terrorism and the authoritarianism that threatens democratic countries.

So let’s recap: international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

Under these circumstances the old title “leader of the free world” takes on renewed meaning. He will have to guide the body politic at home toward resolution and in all likelihood engender resolve in a new alliance of democratic nations to deal with this broad array of challenges. In short it will require someone with experience and the courage to put his nation’s long term interest above his own.

I suppose it’s obvious where I’m going with this. This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq. .

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Yes, We Can. But Do We Want To?

August 7, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

— C.S. Lewis

Can we adopt a more socialist approach to government and transform America into a state not of equal opportunity for individuals to create their own happiness, but a state where a nanny bureaucracy operates for the supposed “good” of its citizens?

Can we accept tyranny by a rainbow proletariat of minorities and special interest groups who wish to mandate permanent entitlements for themselves?

Can we, as Americans, vote to hand over a huge chunk of our national sovereignty to international consensus and global taxation?

Can we adopt the Marxist cause of the class struggle, the utopian fix for all that ills us, and become part of a unified coalition of socialist countries around the world, in the hope that mankind can find Obama’s “collective redemption”?

Can we?

That’s not the question.

We’re Americans. We are our own government, and we, the electorate, decide what course we will take. No change whatsoever is necessary to effect our own national will. Our Constitution guarantees us this right through the ballot.

We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Always have been. Since the beginning.

Obama answers the wrong question with his now banal statement: Yes, we can.

Because the question before Americans has never been, Can we become socialists?

The real question, therefore, is: Do we want to?

And America’s answer, it would seem, is completely up for grabs at the moment, without a single ounce of certainty.

Media wants Barack-style change; voters are uncertain

Despite the [1] bubble of inevitability that the Obama campaign and its in-the-tank media have blown around this candidate, he is slipping now in the polls. He was holding onto a scant lead prior to his grand foreign tour, but now even that is slipping away.

The inevitable candidate is anything but.

USA Today published a [2] poll last week that showed Barack Obama actually trailing John McCain by four points, among [3] likely voters. Obama still has a slight lead among all registered voters, but on most polls it’s within statistical-tie territory. In early June Obama had a nine-point lead. Now he’s ever so slightly up, statistically tied, or down, depending upon one’s choice of poll and how much additional error margin one allows for what pollsters are calling the [4] Bradley Effect.

Not only is Obama slipping in the national polls, but he received no discernible [5] bounce from his highfalutin, very expensive trip abroad. Candidate Obama used campaign funds to take himself, the press, and a retinue of 700 — count them, 700 — campaign aides, first class all the way, on a trip that was luxurious by any standard, and at a time when many Americans could not even afford a small summer vacation due to very high gas prices. Even the most cursory observer might wonder whether reliable American campaign contributors aren’t just a bit resentful over their hard-earned dollars being spent to rally Europeans, when Europeans cannot even vote here.

[6] Rasmussen polling now indicates that half the American electorate sees press bias in favor of Obama, and a quarter of us have stopped trusting the media to paint a clear picture of the candidates. The press may indeed want Obama elected, but their overly favorable coverage, which may have aided Obama’s claim to the Democratic Party nomination, has now become a negative in the home-stretch general election. Viewers will now discount nearly every positive they hear regarding Obama, while giving extra weight to every good thing reported about McCain. That’s what bias does; it negatively influences weight given to its arguments.

Do we want a foreign policy rookie in wartime?

Despite the underreported fact that we have now all but won the Iraq War — the war Democrats prematurely declared lost — we are still at war. And, unfortunately, the stakes in our war against Islamo-fascism rise daily as Iran continues unabatedly defiant in its pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

We Americans can and do bicker interminably over domestic issues and sometimes get equally riled over foreign events, but on one thing we have a history of coming together in a unified spirit. That “thing,” of course, is a war against an aggressive enemy. When it comes to our national security, we are historically wont to give our wartime votes to experience, rather than face possible annihilation because of a leader who has not proven his ability to keep our children safe.

So, even though we certainly can choose Obama, the novice, to lead us through the perilous days ahead in this war, we may resoundingly choose not to do so.

Do we want to pay the UN-imposed global poverty tax?

Barack Obama’s single piece of signature legislation in his less-than-200-day tenure as a United States senator is quite revealing. Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which shows every sign of passing now, amply demonstrates this candidate’s ultimate priority issue.

At a time when real Americans are experiencing inflated gas prices, upsurges in food prices, record numbers of mortgage foreclosures, and an already-out-of-control national debt, which serves to drive the confidence in our currency down worldwide, the Democrat Congress quickly advances the Global Poverty Act and practically shoves it defiantly in taxpayers’ faces, so that their presidential candidate can claim he did something as a senator.

Basically, this law if enacted will force all future presidents to oversee and commit a full 0.7 percent of our national GDP to fighting global poverty, in keeping with United Nations expectations of prosperous countries — Western Europe and the United States.

Who is against helping the poor?

Certainly not Americans. The problem with the Global Poverty Act is that it utterly fails to take into account the actual amounts already contributed by Americans to fight poverty, not only abroad, but in our own country, where sadly some poverty does still exist.

In his groundbreaking and myth-defying book, [7] Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks explains why press attacks on American refusal to cave to the UN on this tax are based on flat-out lies and, therefore, wrong:

It is true that U.S. official development assistance (ODA), at about $10 billion, is only about a tenth of 1 percent of [American] GDP. However, this amount is accompanied annually by about $13 billion in other types of government assistance, and about $50 billion in remittances from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals. All in all, total American international aid comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP — approximately $200 per year/per American.

European charitable giving is practically nonexistent, according to Brooks’ exhaustive research on the subject, which he presumes is the reason Europeans fail to comprehend our national resistance to forced government taxation in this regard. Not only that, but Brooks also takes note of the fact that the $50 billion we voluntarily contribute to good deeds abroad represents a mere two percent of our overall charitable giving. We give the bulk of our charity to Americans.

So, can we fight global poverty? Of course, we can and already do. The question, then, is whether we want to be forcefully taxed to do it, or whether we wish to continue to do it our own way.

Do we want Obama’s the-government-always-does-it-better approach to federal governing?

As in many other Obama policy proposals, this man seems to believe that no matter what the issue, government does it better than individuals.

Whether it’s a politician telling a general how to fight a war, or telling a mother and father how to educate their children, or telling doctors how to treat illness, or telling businesses how to hire, Barack Obama favors the old socialist do-gooder model of trusting government over individuals.

As for me and my vote, we will steer clear of a candidate who favors this kind of “well-intentioned” tyranny. We already have too much of this for my taste. And I, like C.S. Lewis, consider this the very worst kind of tyranny there is, the kind that glorifies itself in self-congratulatory accolades for blatant busybody interloping.

And when it comes to electing a wartime president, there are three — and only three — genuine issues:

  1. Foreign policy strength,
  2. Foreign policy strength, and
  3. Foreign policy strength.

Can we elect Obama as our wartime president and nanny-state overseer?

Yes, we can, but I sure don’t want to. Do you?

Friday, August 1, 2008

Obama Plays the Race Card....and Calls Republicans Racist

At a campaign stop in Missouri on Wednesday Barack Obama made the following statement...
“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Mr. Obama said in Springfield, Mo., echoing earlier remarks. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”
Sen. McCain's campaign went on the attack claiming...
“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,”
The Obama camp's counter...
"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."
But when Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod was questions on Good Morning America on Friday he admitted...
"He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."
You can watch Obama and Axelrod's comments here

So let's call a spade a spade here (by the way, this is NOT a racist phrase), what Obama is basically saying is Republican's are going to try to make this a race about him being black, being an African-American...that they are racist.

Let me speak directly to Mr. Obama here, Barack this election is NOT about race. The only people who seem to care that you are black are other blacks.
In terms of voter demographics, black voters continued to overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama. Ninety-one percent of blacks in Pa. and 89 percent in Ohio and Fla support the Ill. senator.
So let's be very clear here, Republicans and John McCain aren't making this election about race, Barack Obama is making this election about race. Is this really the type of person you want to elect to lead this nation. What roads will he lead us down if he carries this mentality to the White House?

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Obama Has Saved Us From The Oil Crisis

What amazing is so simple, we just needed someone as great as him to explain it to our small minds,

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much."

Glad to hear he has an energy policy to get us back on track.

Hey Obama, here is a tip right back at ya, it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear to be an idiot, than to open it and confirm peoples suspicions. Just FYI.

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

Michelle Obama's College Thesis

I didn't expect this was going to turn up before the election but here it is, looks like it might be old news for some. Haven't taken the time to look at it yet but wanted to provide the download location for those who may want to review it.

You can read it from the site or join to download (pretty painless).

A excerpt from the introduction....

Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost. My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my "Blackness" than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.

These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable.

Let me know what you think after your review.


Monday, July 28, 2008

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

Read the rest of the article at

Friday, July 25, 2008

HYPE The Obama Effect

Death Row Inmates for Barack Obama

Obama supporter Dale Leo Bishop executed for his role in the claw hammer murder of a friend.

Ask anyone convicted of a capital offense who their friend is and they will tell you, it's Barack Obama. Just recently in his final words, Dale Leo Bishop who was convicted for his part in the claw hammer murder of Marcus Gentry voiced his support for Barack Obama.

See the below story from the NY Daily News.
Barack Obama has a fan on Death Row in Mississippi

Michael Saul
Daily News Political Correspondent

Thursday, July 24th 2008, 4:45 PM

Obama-mania has reached the last mile - Mississippi's Death Row.

Dale Leo Bishop's final words before his execution Wednesday night included a pitch for the Democratic presidential candidate, the Jackson Clarion Ledger reported.

"For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice," Bishop, 34, said shortly before he was given a lethal injection for his role in a murder.

Obama actually says he supports the death penalty for "the most heinous crimes."

Bishop's very last words - after the endorsement - were: "God bless America. It has been great living here. That's all."
One has to wonder if he means it has been great living here only recently similar to how Michelle Obama has only recently become proud of her country?

Unfortunately for Bishop and others on death row, Barack has recently made a political flip flop on this issue as well and he is now a supporter for the death penalty, drawing sharp criticism from those opposed to the practice.

What a difference a general election makes.

Hours after the Supreme Court handed down a ruling banning the death penalty for the rape of a child, Democratic candidate Barack Obama found his inner Scalia and declared it a miscarriage of justice.

Informed voters will see Obama's move for what it is: an opportunistic embrace of a sharply right-wing stance to shed the (dubious) stigma of being "the most liberal senator" in the Congress. In a week that saw him backpedal on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and on free trade, his supporters may see this as just another move rightward in his path toward the White House. But this is more than that. This is a reactionary stance that betrays those who would be his natural base of support, not to mention those communities that are actually affected by the death penalty. The fact that Obama was speaking at a press conference in Chicago is especially painful. It is a city that, as we speak, is handing subpoenas to police officers who tortured African American men on the South Side into giving confessions for crimes that they didn't commit -- men who ended up on death row. Obama, famously, was an organizer on the South Side of Chicago in this era. He knows how the death penalty system really works. He's just choosing to ignore it for the sake of cheap political points. How much he will actually gain from his pro-death penalty proclamation is unclear. Is it more than he stands to lose?

It is a sad day when a candidate who so many genuinely saw as bringing "change we can believe in" takes a politically motivated and intellectually dishonest stance in a matter of life and death. Obama risks alienating those who gave him his rise to the top, by betraying the very ideals that attracted them to him in the first place.
Ouch Barack! But at least you are in good company, apparently Bishop has flip-flopped on this issue also

From the LA Times
Bishop had asked for the death penalty at his 2000 trial, but later changed his mind and sought a reprieve.
And apparently Bishop doesn't know where he really stands on the issue either since when asked about his buddy Jessie Johnson who actually delivered the fatal blow....
Bishop about Johnson. "He indicated to me he thought Johnson should be where is now - on death row,"
Barack Obama flip-floppy as their candidate. Seems like their opportunistic changing of their positions as it suits them is the only "real change we can believe in".

Monty's Muse