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

by Wayne LaPierre

NRA Executive Vice President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “change” Obama and his close allies—like George Soros’ 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.⁷

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

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

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

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

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

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.¹³

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.²

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'

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

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?

August 7, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver

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

— C.S. Lewis

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

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

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

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

Can we?

That’s not the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media wants Barack-style change; voters are uncertain

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

The inevitable candidate is anything but.

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

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

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

Do we want a foreign policy rookie in wartime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is against helping the poor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subliminal Messages

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

At a campaign stop in Missouri on Wednesday Barack Obama made the following statement...

“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Mr. Obama said in Springfield, Mo., echoing earlier remarks. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”

Sen. McCain's campaign went on the attack claiming...

“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck,”

The Obama camp's counter...

"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."

But when Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod was questions on Good Morning America on Friday he admitted...

"He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American."

You can watch Obama and Axelrod's comments here 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?