OBAMA, ADRIFT

June 28, 2008

What does Barack Obama truly believe? Does it depend on the day of the week?

True, candidates typically tack to the center after contentious primaries. But the "candidate of change" is taking that process to Twilight Zone levels.

* Last fall, a spokesman said of a controversial element in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization bill, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

This week, Obama declared his support for a FISA bill that included just such immunity.

* Last week, Obama switched his position on public financing of presidential campaigns.

* He's managed to switch his position on NAFTA twice: He supported it before the primary; said he wanted to renegotiate it while campaigning in Ohio - and now has told a magazine interviewer that his language during the primaries may have been "overheated."

* On foreign policy, his longstanding assertion that he would meet with the leaders of regimes hostile to the United States "without preconditions" has gone by the boards.

* His declaration before AIPAC that he believed in a "united Jerusalem" didn't even last a news cycle - a spokesman produced a "clarification" within hours after Obama's speech.

Again, adjustments of message are normal as a campaign proceeds. And changing circumstances can result in changing positions - such as John McCain's acknowledgement that the energy crisis now warrants more domestic oil drilling.

But Barack Obama's twists and turns reveal a lack of fundamental bearings.

Does he stand for anything?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/editorials/obama__adrift_117603.htm

Obama the Liar

Obama's Supreme Mistake on Guns

The Supreme Court Rules Against Obama's Anti-Gun Views On D.C. Gun Ban, Further Demonstrating Obama Is Most Anti-Gun Presidential Candidate In History

Obama Expressed Support For The D.C. Gun Ban:

Obama Campaign: "Obama Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional." "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

During An Interview, Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently - I'm quoting here - 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right." (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

• In The Same Interview, Obama Indicated He Feels The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. Harris: "And you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Obama: "Oh, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets..." (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

In Addition To Supporting The D.C. Gun Ban, Obama Has A Long Anti-Gun Record That Includes Telling Scholar John Lott "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns":

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott: "In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'" (John R. Lott, Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. "Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Instit ute -- an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights. "[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." (Ryan Keith "Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws. "In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

On December 21, 1999, Obama Discussed The Penalties One Would Receive If Carrying A Firearm Illegally. (State Of Illinois 91st General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, www.ilga.gov, 12/21/99, p. 20-23)

Obama: "Senator Emil Jones has offered - and I think this is an excellent idea that gets at the concerns that everybody on that side of the aisle has had, which is that we would create a felony offense and a misdemeanor offense, depending on the kinds of weapons you're carrying. Basically, the provision would say that there are category one weapons: handguns, sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, other firearms that are small enough to store on their person, that to unlawfully possess and carry these weapons would be a felony; but, on the other hand, if you were going to be carrying a rifle or shotgun, a spring gun, other firearm that were used for hunting, then that would be a misdemeanor." (State Of Illinois 91st General Assembly Regular Session S enate Transcript, www.ilga.gov, 12/21/99, p. 21)

http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=5ad36015-aa6f-4d85-9b1c-60b62b813aea

Here Obama goes again....another lie

Excellent catch by the Gateway Pundit!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bummer-obama-caught-in-major-lie-in.html

Bummer. Obama Caught In a Major Lie In Very First Election Ad

"That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work... cut taxes for working families... extended healthcare for wounded troops that had been neglected (Public Law 110-181). I approve of this message because I'll never forget those values."

Barack Obama
"The Country I Love"
First General Election Ad

Bummer-- Barack Obama says he'll never forget those "Kansas Values" from his grandparents but it looks like he already has.

Here is a frame from Obama's very first general election ad:

Obama says that he "extended healthcare for wounded troops that had been neglected" and cited Public Law 110-181 as proof of this.

The problem is: Obama didn't show up to vote. Only 9 senators voted the bill down or did not show up to vote.
Obama was one of the 9.
The bill passed the senate 91 to 3... without Obama's vote.

Obama's Change

Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama

The seven dwarfs always left to go work in the mines early each morning.
As always, Snow White stayed home doing her domestic chores.
As lunchtime approached, she would prepare their lunch and carry it to the mine.
One day as she arrived at the mine with the lunch, she saw that there had been a terrible cave-in.
Tearfully, and fearing the worst, Snow White began calling out, hoping against hope that the dwarfs had somehow survived.
’Hello, hello!’ she shouted.
’Can anyone hear me? Hello!’
For a long while, there was no answer. Losing hope, Snow White again shouted,
’Hello! Is anyone down there?’
Just as she was about to give up all hope, there came a faint voice from deep within the mine.
’Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama’
Snow White fell to her knees, crossed herself and prayed,
’Oh, thank you, Lord! At least Dopey is still alive.’

So why whyNOTbarackobama?

This is not where I saw myself several months back. Around the first of the year, before either party's nominee was determined, when it seemed like Hillary was a lock and the Republican race was crowded, I was a staunch RON PAUL supporter. Ron Paul was always a long shot and I didn't expect for him to be around in November but I remained firm in my support as I think that his ideas are the real "change" that this country needs. Then a few unexpected things started to happen: the Republican race quickly thinned out and nobody's favorite John McCain became the obvious nominee. Hillary started to look like less of a lock as long-short Brack Obama unexpectedly pulled even with her and then pulled out in front.

I stated publicly several times before the Democrat ticket was determined that I would not vote McCain just to keep Hillary out of the White House, I would remain committed to Ron Paul through November. If Obama got the nomination though, I did not think I would be able to sit by and allow him to be elected.

Well that's where we are now and this is where I am. As for why I am against Obama....well I'll just let my blog speak for itself. I hope you'll take the time to stop by and check it out and also forward the link to all your friends so come this November they will know whyNOTbarackobama!

Thanks!

Monty (http://whyNOTbarackobama.blogspot.com/)

Let's hope America is wise enough to follow Dr. King's advice

Obama’s America Is September 10th America - His latest remarks betray an alarming ignorance

By Andrew C. McCarthy

This is June 2008. That means it marks the ten-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s indictment.
He was first charged by my old office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, in June 1998. That was before the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (hundreds killed), before the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. members of the U.S. Navy killed), and before 9/11 (nearly 3000 Americans killed). So it’s fair to ask: How is that strategy of prosecuting him in the criminal-justice system working out?

That’s a question Sen. John McCain ought to be putting to Sen. Barack Obama every day.

Sen. Obama, the Democrat’s presumptive nominee, made some astounding statements yesterday which provided his views on confronting the most urgent challenge facing the American people — that of radical Islam.

Taking aim at the Bush approach of regarding our terrorist enemies as, well, enemies, rather than criminal defendants clothed in all the rights and privileges of those American citizens whom these enemies pledge to kill, Obama asserted:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

This is a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism. In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended).

But let’s assume incorrectly, for argument’s sake, that everyone was brought to justice in that case. What about Khobar Towers, Sen. Obama? After Iran and Hezbollah, perhaps with al-Qaeda’s assistance, killed 19 members of the United States Air Force, the Clinton administration responded with … a criminal investigation. The result? No arrests — in fact, no indictment was even filed until 2001.

After the embassy bombings, the aforementioned bin Laden was indicted along with his top henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri and nearly two dozen others. Exactly six of those men have been prosecuted as a result. And of those, the top-ranking al-Qaeda figure, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, has never been tried for the embassy bombings. When we gave him all the glorious privileges of the American Constitution, he used his access to free legal help as an opportunity to attempt a kidnapping escape from custody — in the course of which he maimed a prison guard by stabbing him in the eye before being subdued.

Then, of course, there was the October 2000 attack on the Cole in Aden harbor. No arrests, no indictment until well after the 9/11 attacks. The indictment has now been on the books for years as our Yemeni “allies” have pretended to pursue the al-Qaeda perpetrators — who, of course, have been permitted to escape from confinement. There is no prospect of an American prosecution because of the justice system’s painfully obvious limitations. Those terrorists are free to plot more American deaths, unless, of course, our military or intelligence operatives get them first.

And that’s the point isn’t it? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been under indictment by the Justice Department even longer than bin Laden. He was first charged in 1996, in connection with the so-called “Bojinka” plot to blow up American airliners as they flew over the Pacific (one Japanese tourist killed during a dry run). The plot was also found to include plans to assassinate President Clinton and Pope John Paul II.

So what happened? Because criminal prosecution is incapable of dealing with the likes of KSM — a highly insulated foreign jihadist operating from terror safe havens sprinkled across the globe — he remained free to plot murder and mayhem for years, finally masterminding 9/11.

KSM was apprehended only after the Bush administration changed strategy and started regarding terrorists as what they are: wartime enemies, rather than in possession of Obama’s suggested “criminal defendants” status.

The fact is that we used the criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years — from the bombing of the World Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously, we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be precise). And with a handful of exceptions, they were the lowest ranking of players.

When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the criminal-justice system works against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top concern: due process. And on that score, he’s quite right: We’ve shown we can conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials, appeals, and habeas corpus.

As a national-security strategy, however, and as a means of carrying our government’s first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure.

A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. Most of what is needed never happens in a courtroom. It happens in military operations against terrorist strongholds; intelligence operations in which jihadists get assassinated — without trial; intelligence collections in which we cozy up to despicable informants since only they can tell us what we need to know; and aggressive treasury actions to trace terror funds.

That is how you stop the homeland from being attacked, which is what we have done for the last seven years. And it is that from which Obama wants to move away.

Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th .

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTFhZTdmZWZlMGExNDRjOWRlZWUxYzEwNjg0MWEzZDc=

Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

posted at 3:20 pm on June 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

According to Barack Obama, high gas prices don’t really constitute a problem for Americans. He stated yesterday that the reason for our anger is the rapid increase in prices, not the prices themselves. Obama claimed that Americans would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost:

Obama wants higher gas prices? Do the rest of the Democrats feel the same way? It certainly would explain why they continue to block domestic energy production in oil. It would also explain the bloated Lieberman-Warner bill, which would have imposed a heavy regulatory bureaucracy on the energy industry, along with rationing that would have both driven up prices and held down supply.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/11/obama-id-like-higher-gas-prices-just-not-so-quickly/

Obama, Pelosi and the Don't Drill Democrats

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:56 AM
"You can't drill your way out of this problem" Nancy Pelosi declared last week after House democrats refused to lift the ban on oil exploration on the outer continental shelf --at least 50 miles from American shores.

Of course the only way to get more oil and thus decrease the price is to in fact drill. Oil is obtained only by drilling. The casual indifference to reality displayed by the Speaker mirrors the Democrats' indifference to the economic pain being inflicted by their steadfast refusal to allow America to tap its own reserves.

The Don't Drill Democrats will have a lot to answer for at the polls in November if the GOP keeps the focus on the extremism of the majority on this issue. Perhaps the House GOP ought to offer this amendment: When and only if oil hits $200 a barrel then exploration on the outer continental shelf can begin.

Is there any cost the democrats are unwilling to see average Americans bear without acting?

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/84525965-6375-46e7-9ee1-c234cecdb82f

Compare this to what John McCain has to say on the issue?

McCain urges end to ban on offshore drilling

Sen. John McCain said Monday the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their own coasts.
With gasoline prices rising and the United States chronically dependent on foreign oil, the Republican presidential contender said his proposal would "be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis."

McCain also suggested giving the states incentives, including a greater share of royalties paid by companies that drill for oil, as an incentive to permit exploration.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91BBR280&show_article=1

So whose approach do you think has a better chance of easing the energy problems currently facing Americans?

Obama's Mother: Fascinating and Revealing

Susan Llewellyn – June 2, 2008
Stanley Ann Dunham Obana Soetoro (November 29, 1942 - November 7, 1995), known as Ann Dunham and/or Stanley Ann Dunham, was an American anthropologist, left-wing social activist, and the mother of Senator Barack Obama. She was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Her father was a furniture salesman in downtown Seattle, Washington, and her mother worked for a bank. After a year living in Seattle, her family moved to Mercer Island, Washington, in 1956 so that 13-year old Ann could attend the Mercer Island High School that had just opened. At the school she was on the debate team and graduated in 1960.

Her family moved to Hawaii and Ann attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where she studied anthropology. When Ann Dunham arrived in Hawaii, she was a full-fledged radical leftist and practitioner of critical theory. She also began to engage in miscegenation (inter-racial relationships) as part of her attack on society. Susan Blake, one of her friends, has stated she never dated 'the crew-cut white boys'. She had a world view, even as a young girl. It was embracing the different, rather than that ethnocentric thing of shunning the different. That was where her mind took her. In Hawaii she met Barack Obama, Sr. from Kenya in her Russian language class. Barack Obama, Jr. was born August 4, 1961, but was called 'Barry.'

Barack Obama, Sr. left Ann and their son in 1963 to attend Harvard in Boston. Press reports claim Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. were divorced around this time; however, no evidence has yet been discovered to show they were ever married. The senior Obama obtained a masters degree in economics at Harvard and returned to Kenya in 1965 where he obtained a position in the Kenyan government. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1982.

Two years later, when her son was five, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian oil manager and practicing Muslim whom she met at the university. In 1967 they moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. While in Indonesia Ann got a job at the American embassy teaching English.

Barack's half-sister, Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia. Ann, Barry, and his sister Maya moved back to Hawaii. Ann Dunham soon returned to Indonesia with Maya but divorced Soetoro in the late 1970s.

Dunham traveled around the world, pursuing a career in rural development that took her to Ghana, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh. In 1986 Ann Dunham worked on a developmental project in Pakistan. Later that year Ann and her daughter traveled the Silk Road in China. In 1992 she earned a Ph.D in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her dissertation, 'Peasant Blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds,' was 1067 pages long. She worked for the Ford Foundation and promoted Microlending. During this time, while his mother was roaming around the world, Barack Hussein Obama Jr 'Barry' was being raised by his grandmother....the same woman he would later describe as a 'typical white person'. His affectionate nickname, used by grandparents, was 'Bar.'

In 1980, Barry announced to everyone that he would no longer be called Barry, but would only answer to his formal name, also the name of his father, as Barack. He explained that he wanted his identity to mirror that of his paternal lineage.

During Obama's campaign for the 2008 presidential election he has portrayed his mother as just an ordinary conservative girl from Kansas; however in reality she was a radical leftist and cultural Marxist. She lived in the Seattle area, spending her teenage years in Seattle coffee shops with other young radical leftists. Obama claims his mother's family were conservative Methodists or Baptists from Kansas. Not true in any way. His mother's parents were members of a left-wing Unitarian church near Seattle. The church located in Bellevue, Washington was knicknamed 'the little red church,' because of its leftist leanings.

The school Ann attended, Mercer Island High School, was a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers. John Stenhouse, board member, told the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of staff. Two teachers at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a critical theory curriculum to students which included; rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx. The hallway between Foubert's and Wichterman classrooms was sometimes called 'anarchy ally.'

Dunham has been described by her friends as 'a fellow traveler... meaning a communist/socialist sympathizer.

In an interview, Barack Obama referred to his mother as 'the dominant figure in my formative years... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.'

Before she died Ann Dunham wanted to adopt a mixed-race Korean baby fathered by a Black American stationed in South Korea. Ann Dunham died in Hawaii in 1995 of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer.

On his campaign trail, practically none of Obama's descriptions of his family history, environment, his developmental years, schooling and/or his parents are anywhere near truth or historical, verifiable fact.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8776

Sign outside a Las Vegas Gun Shop

Malik Obama confirms Obama raised as Muslim - So why is Obama lying about it????

Apparently the Obamas of Kenya have been reading those scurrilous emails to which Barack likes to refer, because they have no doubt -- contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign, that the presidential candidate was raised a Moslem. They take that as a given.

As the Jerusalem Post reports, "Barack Obama's half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background. In an interview with Army Radio he expressed a special salutation from the Obamas of Kenya."

The Obama brothers' father, a senior economist for the Kenyan government who studied at Harvard University, died in car crash in 1982. He left six sons and a daughter. All of his children - except Malik -- live in Britain or the United States. Malik and Barack met in 1985.

In a remarkable denial issued last November that still stands on the official campaign website, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs issued a statement explaining that "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

Apparently Malik Obama, himself a Muslim, had not read the press release.

Melanie Phillips is the most recent commentator to draw attention to the massive body of evidence that leaves no doubt that Barak Hussein Obama was born a Muslim (Islam is patrilineal) and raised a Muslim (so registered in school, acknowledging attending Islamic classes, reported accompanying his step-father to the mosque, and able to recite the Koran in the original Arabic).

Reuven Koret, Aaron Klein and Daniel Pipes have previously pointed to the attempts by Obama and his campaign to conceal the candidate's Muslim background. The well documented evidence draws upon the on-the-ground interviews by researchers in Indonesia and Kenya, published quotations of Obama's childhood friends and his school records, as well as the candidate's own autobiography.

It is not clear whether Barack Obama will now disown his half-brother Malik, or throw him under the campaign bus, for acknowledging that shared family background. In any case, some one should notify "Fight the Smear" tout de suite. Perhaps they can get him with the program.

Obama and McCain

Thomas Sowell
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/06/05/obama_and_mccain?page=full&comments=true

Vetting Obama

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: If Barack Obama has such difficulty picking friends, mentors and advisers, should voters entrust him with the responsibility for picking a Cabinet and Supreme Court justices?

Sen. Obama was going to ride into Washington aboard a white horse and clean out the stables, except his high horse keeps coming up lame.

With the resignation of Washington insider James Johnson from Obama's vice presidential search team, we see the now-typical Obama pattern — surround yourself with either questionable characters or those who don't live up to the standards you yourself set, tap dance awhile, accuse your accusers of political motives, then disown those you said you could not or would not disown.

Obama has a history of railing against "predatory" mortgage lenders, and one in particular, Countrywide Financial. Then it's discovered that Johnson, the former head of the quasi-governmental mortgage agency Fannie Mae, benefited to the tune of $7 million in below-market-rate personal loans and was one of the "Friends of Angelo," Angelo being Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Obama's response was to say, gee, it's not like I'm paying him, and besides, his function was only "tangential" to his candidacy. Forgive us for going off on a tangent, but helping pick the person who is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency is tangential? What if Johnson were to recommend another Friend of Angelo?

Before Johnson's departure, Obama had three people on his VP search team. The second was Eric Holder, a former Clinton deputy attorney general. Holder helped push Bill Clinton to pardon international fugitive and tax cheat Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, was a big Clinton donor.
The third was Caroline Kennedy, last seen claiming Obama is the second coming of her father, JFK. Right.

Obama has experience with sweetheart real estate deals, having participated in a joint venture with now-convicted Illinois influence peddler Tony Rezko, a scheme that netted Obama the big house he now tells college graduates not to seek. It seems Obama, the self-proclaimed Washington outsider, was quite the Cook County, Ill., insider.

Obama has found a way of getting around contributions from special interests and lobbyists — take it from their employees. The Washington Times reports that while he has said he won't accept money from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, Obama has taken "tens of thousands" from partners at Covington & Burling, which was paid almost a half-million dollars to lobby for PhRMA last year. One of its lawyers is Holder.

Obama doesn't accept money from the oil companies, either — just their employees. At one point Obama had received $222,309 from donors at Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others. According to USA Today, two oil company CEOs pledged to raise $50,000 each for Obama.

"The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference," FactCheck.org says. "We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more of an influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees."

Obama has engaged in sweetheart land deals with a donor — Rezko — who is accused of influence peddling while Obama himself has accepted hundreds of thousands from firms that peddle influence. He has associated with race-baiters (the Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger) as well as terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn). One could forgive him for poor judgment, but such episodes have been too frequent. He is just a politician who says and does what politicians say and do when caught.

Personnel is policy, they say, and so far Obama's choices don't inspire confidence. Before he throws anyone else under the bus, let's hope the bus stops here.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298162759992847

Obama: I was for high gas prices before I was against them

by RickMoran

Jim Geraghty reports on an interview Obama gave CNBC on the gas crisis where the candidate came out four square - for higher gas prices:

Barack Obama: I think that... we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy.* And as a consequence we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are.

CNBC's John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?

Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers...

Geraghty translates:

The obvious inference is that Obama doesn't object to $4 a gallon gas per se, just how rapidly the price increased. Most Americans hate it and want gas prices to go down as rapidly as possible. Obama wants to "help people to make the adjustment" to "new circumstances."

Is reducing the price of a gallon of gas a policy priority for Obama? Or does he, like Thomas Friedman, believe that the president should "guarantee people a high price of gasoline - forever."

It's no secret that liberals believe gas prices have always been too low. But you might notice that they are having much more fun recently skewering Republicans and wailing about the high price of fuel.

Some Democrats in the past have advocated as much as a $5 a gallon increase in the gas tax to punish Americans for driving. Funny, we don't hear much about those proposals now. And here's Barack Obama telling us "tough sh*t America, get used to it."

Something else that's kind of strange; it's funny how statements like this by Obama never make it on any other newscasts...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_i_was_for_high_gas_price.html

We Trusted The DNC Rules Committee....

http://www.dems4mccain.info/we-trusted-the-dnc-rules-committee-t-shirt-design

Obama Tax Backgrounder

OBAMA’S HIGH TAX PLATFORM WILL FURTHER WEAKEN OUR ECONOMY

Obama Is A High Tax Candidate, Having Proposed A Slew Of Tax Increases:

Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

• Obama Also Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (“Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

• Obama Called For A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. Obama: “I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)

“[Obama] Wants To Raise Taxes Even Above The Levels Of The Clinton Era, Including A Huge Increase In The Payroll Tax.” (Editorial, “The Obama We Don't Know,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/08)

If Obama Is Elected To The Presidency And Democrats Get A 60-Vote Majority In The Senate, Taxes Will Go Up. “What will happen to the U.S. economy if Barack Obama wins the presidency and he's backed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Taxes will go up.” (Rich Karlgaard, Op-Ed, “Where Will Taxpayers Hide?” Forbes, 6/16/08)

Obama’s Plan To Raise Taxes During An Economic Downturn Would Only Further Weaken Our Economy:

CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Asked Obama: “Why Raise Taxes At All In An Economic Slowdown? Isn’t That Going To Put A Further Strain On People?” (CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” 3/27/08)

U.S. News & World Report’s Michael Barone Said Obama’s Fiscal Policy Is Akin To Herbert Hoover’s – Raising Taxes And Backing Protectionist Trade Policies During An Economic Slowdown. “On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence: Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy.” (Michael Barone, Op-Ed, “Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever,” U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08)

OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY VOTED FOR HIGHER TAXES IN THE U.S. SENATE

It’s No Surprise That Obama Would Raise Taxes As President, Because He’s Repeatedly Voted For Higher Taxes In The Senate:

Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes In The U.S. Senate. (RNC Research)

• To Date, Obama Has Voted For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session. (RNC Research; The Library Of Congress Website, thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 6/8/08)

Obama Voted At Least 12 Times For Higher Income Taxes. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least Twice. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted Against Extending The Expanded Child Tax Credit. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted At Least 3 Times Against Repealing The 1993 Income Tax Increase On Social Security Benefits. (RNC Research)

Obama Has Voted At Least 5 Times Against Providing Relief From The Alternative Minimum Tax. (RNC Research)

Obama Has Voted At Least 7 Times Against Tax Incentives Benefitting Small Business. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted Against Capital Gains Tax Cuts At Least 9 Times. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted Against Tax Cuts On Dividend Income At Least 9 Times. (RNC Research)

Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning As Little As $31,850:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats’ Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning As Little As $31,850. “Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.” (Andrew Taylor, “Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget,” The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

NOTE: Obama’s Vote For The Democrats’ Budget Is At Odds With His Rhetoric On The Campaign Trail, Where He Claims He’ll Provide Tax Relief For Working Americans. Obama: “I’ll give a tax cut to working people …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Rally, Denver, CO, 1/30/08)

OBAMA SUPPORTED HUNDREDS OF TAX INCREASES IN THE STATE SENATE

Obama Has A Record Of Voting For Higher Taxes In The Illinois State Senate:

In The State Senate, Obama Supported “Hundreds Of Tax Increases.” ABC’s Terry Moran: “[O]bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases.” (ABC’s “Nightline,” 2/25/08)

In 2004, Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, “Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs,” Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

• The Legislation “Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups,” Which Contended It Would “Drive Companies Out Of State” And Cost Jobs. “The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs.” (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, “Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs,” Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

In 2003, Obama Voted For A Bill “That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes” On Businesses And Licenses. “Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government.” (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, “4 Partisan Questions For Obama,” Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)

• The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois’ Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. “Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes.” (Brian Wallheimer, “Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says,” St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)

In 2003, Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

• The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. “The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich’s budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas.” (Kevin McDermott, “Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

• Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. “Just as harmful to the state’s economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state.” (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, “Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses,” Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)

In 1999, Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, “Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama,” The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04)

OBAMA’S TAX, SPENDING AND BUSINESS INTEREST GROUP RATINGS

Obama Received A “Perfect Liberal Score” On Economic Issues From The National Journal:

“In 2006, [Obama] Was One Of 13 Senate Democrats With A Perfect Liberal Score On Economic Issues.” (Richard E. Cohen, “Left To Right,” National Journal, 3/3/07)

Obama Gets Poor Marks From Tax, Spending And Business Interest Groups:

Americans For Tax Reform Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 7.5 Out Of 100. (Americans For Tax Reform Website, www.atr.org, Accessed 1/29/08)

Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, “CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks,” Press Release, 12/27/07)

The National Taxpayers Union Gave Obama A Grade Of “F” For His Fiscal Voting Record. (National Taxpayers Union Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 9/25/07)

The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Gave Obama A 33 Percent Rating In 2007. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, www.uschamber.com, Accessed 6/6/08)

http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?GUID=40abb3a8-83c8-4f0f-ae4f-c85162396145

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 to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
FACT: Barack Obama supports requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms.
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 wants to eliminate your Right to Carry.
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.”
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.
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.
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.
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.
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.
FACT: Barack Obama supports “one-gun-a-month” sales restrictions.
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.
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. 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.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991

Global Labor and the Global Economy: Who "sent" Obama?

Global Labor and the Global Economy: Who "sent" Obama?

Global Labor and the Global Economy: You're so 1988 or When did Barack Obama meet Bill Ayers?

Global Labor and the Global Economy: You're so 1988 or When did Barack Obama meet Bill Ayers?