Why NOT Barack Obama

Your Pie, Not My Pie

2008-10-27T23:32:00.002-04:00

Are you and Obama really a match?

2008-10-27T19:27:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-27T19:18:00.002-04:00

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 http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ 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	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

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	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000
Tax: Single	$17,923	$15,739	$15,620	$17,923	$2,303
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$15,293	$12,364	$12,219	$15,293	$3,074
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$18,803	$16,083	$15,972	$18,803	$2,831
Tax: Head of Household	$16,424	$14,439	$14,344	$16,424	$2,080

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	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Tax: Single	$25,673	$22,739	$22,620	$25,673	$3,053
Tax: Married - Filing Joint	$22,293	$18,614	$18,469	$22,293	$3,824
Tax: Married - Filing Separate	$27,515	$23,715	$23,504	$27,515	$4,011
Tax: Head of Household	$23,699	$20,741	$20,594	$23,699	$3,015

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

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

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

2008-10-25T11:28:00.002-04:00

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.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/house-democrats-abolish-401k-tax-breaks.html

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.

PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS...TELL THEM, NO IF, ANDS OR BUTS...UNDER OBAMA YOU WILL PAY HIGHER TAXES!!!!

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

2008-10-16T22:46:00.004-04:00

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.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/10/13/daily63.html

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

2008-10-15T17:14:00.002-04:00

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."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

2008-10-13T15:08:00.002-04:00

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 HERE

Obama Wants Your Daughter To Register For Draft!

2008-10-13T14:55:00.003-04:00

Candidates differ on female draft

Monday, October 13, 2008

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

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.

More HERE

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

2008-10-13T14:47:00.000-04:00

The Obama Debate Every American Should See

2008-10-09T00:19:00.002-04:00

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.

http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=516e407a-35ba-49b7-8c53-5f7ed9887f76&t=c

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?

Obama Wants to Block Free Speech

2008-09-26T00:30:00.004-04:00

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.

http://stlcofcc.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/obamination-obama-suppoerters-bob-mcculloch-jennifer-joyce-threaten-to-prosecute-people-for-criticizing-obama/

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.

How Obama Wants to "Protect" America

2008-09-11T07:41:00.002-04:00

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

2008-09-01T22:15:00.002-04:00

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’ Moveon.org —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’ Moveon.org—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.

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=308

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!

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

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

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

2008-08-22T12:52:00.002-04:00

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.

http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/obama-sued-in-philadelphia-federal.html

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.

http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/update-on-berg-v-obama-lawsuit.html

Keep tuned into America's Right for updates.

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

2008-08-18T20:50:00.002-04:00

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.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/letters.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-07-07-0033.html

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

Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

2008-08-15T00:20:00.001-04:00

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.

http://townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2008/08/14/dangerous_times_in_georgia_demand_serious_leaders

Yes, We Can. But Do We Want To?

2008-08-07T23:59:00.000-04:00

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:

Foreign policy strength,
Foreign policy strength, and
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?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/yes-we-can-but-do-we-want-to/

Subliminal Messages

2008-08-02T11:55:00.000-04:00

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

2008-08-01T23:57:00.003-04:00

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 http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5494911

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.
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19882601&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

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?

Obama Has Saved Us From The Oil Crisis

2008-07-30T23:55:00.002-04:00

What amazing leadership....it 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.

http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php

Michelle Obama's College Thesis

2008-07-30T20:56:00.003-04:00

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.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community

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.

Thanks!

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

2008-07-28T23:36:00.002-04:00

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 http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551#

HYPE The Obama Effect

2008-07-25T17:00:00.001-04:00

http://hypemovie.com/

Death Row Inmates for Barack Obama

2008-07-25T11:57:00.004-04:00

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."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/24/2008-07-24_barack_obama_has_a_fan_on_death_row_in_m.html

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.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/89573/

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 supporters....as 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".

Who Does He Think He Is?

2008-07-20T22:16:00.001-04:00

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: "I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, 'merci beaucoup.'" Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/07/18/who_does_he_think_he_is

Breaking Obama SuperDs Switching to Hillary!

2008-07-16T23:07:00.003-04:00

From http://noquarterusa.net

…There are unconfirmed reports based on phone banking efforts to reach out to Super D’s that 8 previously Obama SD’s, expressed that, given the opportunity, they would vote for Hillary at the convention.

Did you get that?

Superdelegates who have “declared” for Obama are now saying that they would vote for Hillary at the convention.

How many more disillusioned SuperDs are out there?

No wonder Obama wants to break with tradition and keep Hillary off the convention ballot, even though she won more popular votes than he did, and neither of them earned enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.

Alegre explains how the story broke…

I heard about an interview Will Bower of PUMA did recently, where he said delegates are starting to say theyll vote for Hillary in Denver if the DNC does the right thing and run an open and fair convention. That means a roll call vote with Hillarys name put into nomination and on the ballot.
So I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here’s what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his:
“A large phone banking effort to the super d’s combined with Obama’s flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary.”
Maybe this is why BHO and the Toxic Trio are pushing so hard to keep Hillary off the roll call ballot eh? Ive been wondering what theyre so afraid of now it looks like we have part of the answer.

…And points to a Tuesday story in Politico entitled Hill Democrats Miffed at Obama…

I think Politico may have stumbled upon one or two reasons why the Supers are starting to take a fresh look at Hillary….The folks on the Hill (aka Super delegates) are getting pissed at BHO for the lack of effort on his part when it comes to fundraising, coordination and support they’re getting in their own bid for re-election etc. Todays Politico has the story:

After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obamas presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November.

They think they know whats right and everyone else is wrong on everything, groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. They are kind of insufferable at this point.

Read the rest of Alegre’s story here. She wraps it up with this zinger:

Yeah - I can see why those Supers are starting to take a fresh look at Hillary, and are swinging back her way. No way would Hillary ignore down-ticket dems or toss them to the curb the way BHO has.
H E L L O SUPERS?! Anyone out there??!?!?!

Has there ever been a time in history when a Democratic candidate was KEPT OFF the ballot?

Sorry, Barack, you are not appointed by God. This is a time-tested democractic process.

It’s alarming that there now has to be a movement to keep Clinton ON the ballot.

There must be a roll-call vote with Clinton’s name on the ballot.

I envision an uprising at Denver if she’s not.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/15/breaking-obama-superds-switching-to-hillary/#comment-462799

Would You Hire a President Who Padded His Resume?

2008-07-14T21:46:00.002-04:00

July 14, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin

Barack Obama has a solution to his lack of accomplishment and experience: pad his resume. If resume fraud were a crime, Obama would be looking at fifteen to life. And it is not just an isolated incident or two. He is a repeat offender.

Obama started early. Even the [1] New York Times acknowledges that in his book [2] Dreams From My Father Obama accomplished little as a “community organizer.” (”It is clear that the benefit of those years to Mr. Obama dwarfs what he accomplished.”) But he did manage to steal credit for asbestos testing and removal in the Altgeld Gardens, a public housing project in Chicago. But he didn’t quite tell the whole story. The Times writes:

What Mr. Obama does not mention in his book is that residents of the nearby Ida B. Wells housing project, and some at Altgeld itself, had already been challenging the housing authority on asbestos. A local newspaper had also taken up the issue.

Now Obama is running for the presidency on the slimmest record of accomplishment of any major party candidate in recent memory. In June Obama was interviewed by ABC’s [3] Jake Tapper. There was this exchange:

TAPPER: But have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?
OBAMA: Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn’t popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks.
But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective. And the same is true when it comes to the economy. The same is true when it comes to national security. You know, this administration, the Bush administration, has made, for example, the war on terror into a sharply partisan issue. But the truth is, is that I admire some of the foreign policy of George Bush’s father. And I’ve said so before. I think that there’s a tradition of us working together to make sure that we are dealing with the threats that are out there and that we are building a consensus here in the United States. That’s the kind of approach I intend to take when I’m president of the United States.

If you missed the answer to Tapper’s question — name a bipartisan accomplishment putting you at political risk — don’t worry. There wasn’t one. Because unlike John McCain who has taken his lumps from his own party but who has actually accomplished something in Congress, Obama’s record is relatively barren.

[4] Even friendly bloggers remarked that he might have to improve on this non-answer.

Perhaps sensing that Obama needed to demonstrate some record of accomplishment his campaign put up an ad in early July touting his record on welfare reform, [5] claiming he “passed a law to move people from welfare to work — slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” But this wasn’t true. He actually opposed the 1996 welfare reform bill passed by his former rival Hillary Clinton’s husband. As [6] Factcheck.org pointed out:

That’s going too far. First, the law in question wasn’t dreamed up out of thin air by its sponsors. It was the follow-up to the [7] welfare reform act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, that President Clinton signed on Aug. 26, 1996. That law gave states the ability to design their own welfare programs as long as they met certain federal requirements, including limits on how long recipients could get benefits. The bill that Obama cosponsored was Illinois’ version. And far from having “passed” the bill single-handedly, Obama was among five Senate sponsors of the measure, as we [8] said previously. It was passed by both chambers of the Illinois Legislature and signed into law by the governor.
. . .

But we don’t think Obama alone, or even Obama and the four other sponsors of the Illinois law, can take credit for all of this. It was the federal law, hammered out by Clinton and the Republican Congress, that set the wheels in motion and forced states to act.

That same ad also contained an exaggeration about his personal life. Although he claimed to have worked his way through school, his campaign could identify only [9] two summer jobs during his college years.

This propensity to pad his own resume has continued unabated. John McCain nearly committed political suicide by championing comprehensive immigration reform. Obama? His role was slight. Indeed he [10] helped sink the bill at a critical time by joining other pro-Big Labor Democrats in voting on poison pill amendments. But now he boasts of his own role. Chicago Sun-Times’ Washington bureau chief and longtime Obama watcher [11] Lynn Sweet calls foul. She writes:

Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,” said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria,” and a close follower of the legislation. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a “handful” of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants. “When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal,” Graham said.

So what to make of all this? Obama claims that [12] experience is not as important as “judgment” or “change.” By manufacturing or existing accomplishments, however, he suggests that he does not buy his own pitch.

Rather, his repeated attempts to bolster his resume indicate that he may be nervous about his non-existent record of achievement. Not trusting that voters will buy his disparagement of experience, Obama is now resorting to a common, but risking tactic of under-qualified job-seekers: fudge the resume.

Resume fraud carries grave risks. If the employer finds out you are lying, you are unlikely to get the job, even if the competition is weak. And for Obama, who is already belaboring under an [13] avalanche of [14] tough press about his many policy flip-flops, he hardly needs another storyline which sheds doubt on his credibility and character.

It is not yet clear whether more than a few savvy reporters and fact checkers will pick up on Obama’s exaggeration and outright lies about his accomplishments.

But the McCain camp’s new communications team would be smart to ask: would your hire someone who lied on his resume?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/would-you-hire-a-president-who-padded-his-resume/

How Dare He

2008-07-09T19:25:00.000-04:00

By Chet Richards

July 4, 2008

A prominent politician recently proclaimed that he would make America great. Which America is he talking about? Is it the America which gave the world:

A refuge and home for multitudes fleeing from tyranny...
Bounteous wealth for all who would work for it...
Peace and security despite a world filled with terror...
Ideals of justice for all...
Freedom from religious persecution...
Freedom of religion...
Freedom of speech...
Freedom for people be secure in their persons...
Freedom for people to be secure in possessions...
The absolute right of self defense...
The right, and power, to succeed or fail on your own...
The people¢s ultimate power over government...
Democracy for all citizens...
Color blindness...
Racial blindness...
Class blindness...
Wealth blindness...
The notion that who you are is vastly more important than where you came from...
The first written Constitution...
The first written Bill of Rights...
The worlds oldest and most stable Democracy...

Or, is he referring to the America which gave the world:

Electricity...
Electric lighting...
Steamboats and steamships...
The transcontinental railroad...
Petroleum...
Steel...
Sheet glass...
Skyscrapers...
The telephone...
Radio...
Television...
Motion pictures...
Sound recording...
Data recording...
Instantaneous transoceanic communication...
Electronics...
The Vacuum Tube...
The Transistor...
The Integrated Circuit...
Computers...
The Internet...
Search engines...
Cell phones...
The airplane...
Supersonic flight
The modern rocket...
The Moon...
Intercontinental air passenger travel...
Nuclear energy...
Genome decoding...
The first giant telescopes - on Earth and in Space...
Telecommunications satellites and direct broadcast T.V. ...
The Global Positioning System...
The Laser...
Fiber optics communications...
The Electron Microscope...
Elementary particle accelerators...
The Standard Theory of Elementary Particles...
String Theory...
Communications theory...
Servo control theory...
Mass produced automobiles and the freedom to travel...

How about the America which gave the world:

Jazz...
Rock and Roll...
The Broadway Musical...
A treasure chest of great songs...
Great classical music...
Great film scores...
Modern Dance...
Movies...
The greatest motion pictures...
Great poetry...
Great literature...
Great art...

Is he talking about the America which is the true cultural and political magnet for the entire world?

Is he talking about the America which bled itself to:

Abolish slavery...
Save Western Civilization - four times by my count...

Or, is he talking about the America which, from its inception, has placed the liberty of the individual first, last and always?

Who is this politician who claims he will make America great? How dare he?

I've tried to find a link to think but have been unable, if someone can provide a link I would like to link back to the original - THANKS! Monty

O=Zero

2008-07-08T22:16:00.004-04:00

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 05 June 2008
To The Point is proud to present its candidate for Best Bumper Sticker of 2008: The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No résumé, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively. What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is "African-American," the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Let that sink in: Obambi is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah. It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white. Thus Obambi has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd. Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior. Obama is a Zero. There is nothing really there. O=Zero. You can get a O=Zero bumper sticker for your car, a O=Zero t-shirt, encourage your friends to do the same, and get the message out there: That his candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American. http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3227/44/

Obama Denies Christ in His Own Words

2008-07-06T11:56:00.002-04:00

Cathleen Falsani, the author of The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People, interviewed Barack Obama about his faith March 27, 2004, a few days after he clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won.

Because of the intense interest in Obama's faith, she has made the entire interview available uncut and in its entirety.

What emerges is a man who is not comfortable discussing spiritual matters, and is a spiritually confused theological eclectic. He is clearly not a Christian by any biblical, historic measure. He repeatedly affirms then denies Christ, says he believes but is filled with doubt.

Obama's faith reflects the Universalistic beliefs of his grandparents. The fact that he felt comfortable in Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the most radical churches in one of the most liberal denominations, is entirely understandable.

When Falsini asks, "What do you believe?" Obama effectively calls himself a Buddhist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Christian. If you read the whole interview you will see a person who seems to be trying very hard to not take a stand on the Christian faith, yet at the same time tries to identify as a Christian.

It is only fair to take Obama at his word and in context. Please take the time to read the following lengthy article, after all, he might be the next President and leader of the free world. My only purpose is only to answer the question, is Obama a Christian according to biblical, historic standards? I have added my parenthetical comments in bold italics.

The entire interview is available at the following link, very eye opening. Monty

http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=38840

Clinton supporters still not embracing Obama

2008-07-06T01:05:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One week after Sen. Hillary Clinton made a public show of unity with Sen. Barack Obama, a new survey suggests supporters of the New York senator are increasingly less likely to follow her lead.

A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but -- in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party -- the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party's nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party's presidential nominee. Watch why Clinton supporters are struggling with supporting Obama »

That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party's presidential ticket.

Obama won 59 percent of support from registered Democrats polled in June; now he garners 54 percent.

"These things always take time to heal," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "I think Clinton's supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them."

But most political observers agree the prospects of an Obama-Clinton ticket are dim, most notably because Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics and Obama's message of change threatens to be muddled by the 16 years Clinton has spent in Washington

But the question remains whether Obama can win enough Democrats without Clinton as his No. 2.

"If he doesn't pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance," Schneider said. "In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk."

The analysts said maybe more than four weeks is needed for many of Clinton's most devoted supporters to move past her loss, especially considering the primary campaign stretched more than 17 months.

"Many voters find it tough to immediately switch allegiances to a candidate that they once opposed, so they find a 'neutral' setting more comfortable for awhile," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "If that's what is happening to the Clinton supporters who now say they plan to stay at home, Obama may have nothing to worry about. If not, there's a big chunk of the party base that Obama won't be able to count on in November."

While Clinton's stock among many Democrats remains high in the latest poll, her husband's is decidedly lower since a year ago.

Much has been made of Bill Clinton's role in his wife's White House bid -- the increasingly aggressive campaign style, the sharpened attacks leveled at Obama that some viewed as carrying racial overtones and the outbursts at some reporters over what he viewed as unfair media coverage.

The former president increasingly came under fire from neutral Democrats and party elders concerned he was fracturing the party in an election cycle during which Democrats appeared to hold the advantage in nearly every way.

Among all registered voters questioned in the latest poll, his approval rating is down 9 points in just more than a year, from 60 percent to 51 percent.

"Former presidents are supposed to be above politics, but Bill Clinton couldn't be above it in this campaign since his wife was a candidate for president," Schneider said. "But he was seen as too political. Democrats thought it was appropriate for him to support his wife but not appropriate to get overly critical of Obama."

So can Clinton, who left office eight years ago with approval ratings well over 60 percent, repair his image with most Americans?

"He needs to show he's gotten over it," Schneider said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll/

OBAMA, ADRIFT

2008-06-30T19:11:00.000-04:00

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

2008-06-28T22:17:00.000-04:00

Obama's Supreme Mistake on Guns

2008-06-26T22:33:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-22T01:00:00.007-04:00

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

2008-06-21T22:33:00.001-04:00

Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama

2008-06-19T22:31:00.001-04:00

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?

2008-06-18T22:00:00.000-04:00

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

2008-06-17T21:04:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-17T17:09:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-17T00:04:00.001-04:00

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

2008-06-16T23:49:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-15T17:16:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-15T16:27:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-14T13:23:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-12T22:50:00.004-04:00

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

2008-06-12T22:19:00.002-04:00

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

2008-06-12T19:00:00.001-04:00

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....

2008-06-10T22:58:00.001-04:00

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

Obama Tax Backgrounder

2008-06-10T22:27:00.001-04:00

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!

2008-06-09T23:49:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-06-09T23:42:00.000-04:00

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?

2008-06-09T23:41:00.000-04:00

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

Why NOT Barack Obama

Your Pie, Not My Pie

Are you and Obama really a match?

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

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

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

Gallup: Obama 49 percent, McCain 47

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

Obama Wants Your Daughter To Register For Draft!

Obama Want To Spread Your Wealth Around To Those Behind You

The Obama Debate Every American Should See

Obama Wants to Block Free Speech

How Obama Wants to "Protect" America

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

On the Second Amendment,Don’t Believe Obama!

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

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'

Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

Yes, We Can. But Do We Want To?

Subliminal Messages

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

Obama Has Saved Us From The Oil Crisis

Michelle Obama's College Thesis

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

HYPE The Obama Effect

Death Row Inmates for Barack Obama

Who Does He Think He Is?

*Breaking* Obama SuperDs Switching to Hillary!

Would You Hire a President Who Padded His Resume?

How Dare He

O=Zero

Obama Denies Christ in His Own Words

Clinton supporters still not embracing Obama

OBAMA, ADRIFT

Obama the Liar

Obama's Supreme Mistake on Guns

Here Obama goes again....another lie

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

Obama's Change

Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama

So why whyNOTbarackobama?

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

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

Obama, Pelosi and the Don't Drill Democrats

Obama's Mother: Fascinating and Revealing

Sign outside a Las Vegas Gun Shop

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

Obama and McCain

Vetting Obama

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

We Trusted The DNC Rules Committee....

Obama Tax Backgrounder

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe 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?

On the Second Amendment,
Don’t Believe Obama!

Breaking Obama SuperDs Switching to Hillary!