Archive for October, 2008
Thirty Reasons to Vote for John McCain
Good article.
Thirty Reasons to Vote for John McCain
by John Hawkins
1) John McCain doesn’t believe we should raise taxes on anybody during a recession. Obama does and that will prolong our economic woes.
2) John McCain has been endorsed by the NRA. Barack Obama once supported a complete ban on the manufacture and ownership of handguns in America.
3) John McCain co-sponsored a bill to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2005. Had it passed, we wouldn’t have had a bailout crisis. Obama took in the 2nd largest amount of money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. In other words, McCain tried to fix the problem while Obama was in the back pocket of the shady operators who cost the American people over 700 billion dollars.
4) Barney Frank has promised a 25% cut in defense spending if Barack Obama gets into office. John McCain would not support that policy.
5) Both Barack Obama and John McCain publicly pledged to take public financing for their campaigns. McCain kept his word. Obama lied. If he will lie to the American people about that, what else is he lying about?
6) Barack Obama has received hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks, including a million dollar earmark for his wife’s hospital. John McCain has never taken an earmark.
7) John McCain’s health care plan will make health care more affordable, cover more people, and will keep the market in control. Barack Obama’s plan for socialized medicine will put government bureaucrats in charge, will lead to long wait times for operations and lead to a poorer quality of health care. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs under Barack Obama when it’s “free.”
8) Barack Obama says he doesn’t want his daughters “punished” with a baby and that abortion is “above my pay grade.” Do you think a baby is punishment? Do you think abortion is above Sarah Palin’s pay grade?
9) Sarah Palin is a conservative reformer who has taken on oil companies and her own party as a mayor and a governor. Joe Biden is a career Washington insider with no executive experience who’s most famous for gaffes, making things up, and being on the wrong side of almost every foreign policy issue from Vietnam to the surge.
10) Barack Obama spent twenty years going to an anti-white, anti-American church run by Jeremiah Wright. He didn’t go to that church for so long because he disagreed with the message.
11) John McCain once fought for our country in Vietnam. Barack Obama has never fought for anything but his own career.
12) John McCain has literally had to decide whether to go home from a POW camp or stay and be tortured. He made the right decision. Barack Obama’s first tough decision will be made in the White House.
13) John McCain pals around with Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, Sarah Palin, and Phil Gramm. Barack Obama has “pal’d” around with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Frank Davis, and Tony Rezko. What does that say about each man’s character?
14) John McCain always holds his hand over his heart for the national anthem and has never refused to wear a flag pin after calling it a “substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” Do we really want to have the first President in our history who doesn’t love his country?
15) For good or ill, John McCain is a moderate, but Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in America in 2007. Do you trust someone that liberal to run the country?
16) When there’s an international crisis at 3 A.M. and the phone rings, you can’t vote “present.”
17) This is what Barack Obama thinks of Americans who live in small towns,
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
How can someone, who thinks so little of people who don’t live in big cities, truly represent all Americans in the White House?
18) Do you really want to spend the next four years listening to Barack Obama’s supporters cry “racism” every time somebody criticizes or disagrees with him?
19) The mainstream media has been more biased than at any time in our lifetimes for Obama and they’ve launched an absolutely unprecedented smear campaign against Sarah Palin — and worse yet, Sarah Palin’s family. Do you want to reward and encourage more of that kind of behavior in the future by putting Barack Obama in the White House?
20) Barack Obama is a socialist who wants to “spread the wealth around.” John McCain wants to spread the opportunity around instead of making people dependent on government.
21) John McCain has promised no more bailouts. Barack Obama has not.
22) John McCain favors judges who will stick to the Constitution. Barack Obama says he wants judges with “empathy.” Would you want an umpire of a baseball game who sticks to the rules or one who has “empathy?”
23) McCain has promised to balance the budget in four years and whether he makes it or not, he will undoubtedly cut spending. Obama will run trillion dollar deficits. You do the math.
24) We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world and it is driving our companies overseas. John McCain wants to cut the tax to keep businesses in the U.S. and create jobs. Barack Obama does not.
25) Barack Obama will sign the Union Card Check Bill that will end the right to secret ballots for union members, thereby crippling more American industries via unionization. The unions are destroying the Big 3 automakers and the airline industry — and under Obama, they’ll be a further drag on the American economy. Furthermore, since when do we give up the right to have a secret ballot in America? John McCain opposes the Union Card Check Bill.
26) Barack Obama will sign the Fairness Doctrine into law, which is solely designed to drive conservative radio hosts off the air. When did we start trying to win political contests in this country by preventing our political opponents from being heard? John McCain opposes the Fairness Doctrine.
27) Barack Obama wants to force gay marriage on the whole country via the court system, which is why he favors overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. John McCain thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, which is why he supports leaving DOMA in place.
28) John McCain favored the surge. Barack Obama did not. So, if Barack Obama had been President over the last four years, we would have already lost the war in Iraq.
29) Barack Obama wants to leave Iraq in 16 months, whether we win or not. John McCain doesn’t want to risk seeing the victory our troops have bled and died for thrown away for politics’ sake.
30) It would literally be dangerous to the future of our country to have a large Democratic majority in the House, a large majority in the Senate, and Obama in the White House.
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/10/31/thirty_reasons_to_vote_for_john_mccain
Wake up Christians!! Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America
This is an excellent look at where we are headed if Obama is elected.
Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America
What will the United States be like if Senator Obama is elected? The most reliable way of predicting people’s future actions is by looking at their past actions. Jesus himself taught, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Anyone who has hired employees knows that – the best predictor of a person’s future job performance is not what he tells you he can do but what he has actually done in the past.
So here is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator Obama is elected and the far-Left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is written as a “What if?” exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation, because every future “event” described here is based on established legal and political trends that can be abundantly documented and that only need a “tipping point” such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.
Every past event named in this letter (everything prior to October 22, 2008) is established fact. This letter is not “predicting” that all of the imaginative future “events” named in this letter will happen. But it is saying that each one of these changes could happen and also that each change would be the natural outcome of (a) published legal opinions by liberal judges, (b) trends seen in states with liberal-dominated courts such as California and Massachusetts, (c) recent promises, practices and legislative initiatives of the current liberal leadership of the Democratic Party and (d) Senator Obama’s actions, voting record and public promises to the far-Left groups that won the nomination for him. Many of these changes, if they occur, will have significant implications for Christians. This letter is addressed particularly to their concerns so they will be aware of what is at stake before the November 4 election.
Some will respond to this letter by saying, “Well, I hope hardship and even persecution come to the church. It will strengthen the church!” But hoping for suffering is wrong. It is similar to saying, “I hope I get some serious illness because it will strengthen my faith.” Jesus taught us to pray the opposite: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13). Paul urged us to pray not for persecution but “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). So Christians should hope and pray that such difficult times do not come. But if they do come, then it will be right to trust God to bring good out of them and also bring them to an end.
Of course, there are many evangelical Christians supporting Senator Obama as well as many supporting Senator McCain. Christians on both sides should continue to respect and cherish one another’s friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United States to differ on these issues and to freely speak their opinions about them to one another.
———————————————————–
October 22, 2012
Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words, O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave? I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.
The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far- Left policies that had marked his career. They were wrong.
The Supreme Court
On January 20, 2009, President Obama’s inauguration went smoothly, and he spoke eloquently of reaching out to Republicans who would work with him. Even in the next month, when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens announced they would step down from the Supreme Court, nobody was very surprised – Ginsburg was already 75 years-old and in ill health,1 and Stevens was 88. President Obama nominated two far-Left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges, and the Democratic Senate confirmed them quickly. They are brilliant, articulate and in their early 40s, so they can expect to stay on the court for 30 or 40 years. But things seemed the same because the court retained its 4-4 split between liberals and conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.
The decisive changes on the Supreme Court started in June, when Justice Kennedy resigned – he was 72 and had grown weary of the unrelenting responsibility. His replacement – another young liberal Obama appointment – gave a 5-4 majority to justices who were eager to create laws from the bench. The four conservative justices who remained – John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – were suddenly in the minority. Then in August 2009, two months after Kennedy resigned, Justice Scalia unexpectedly announced his resignation due to health reasons and by October 2009 another Obama appointment took his oath and joined the court.
The three remaining conservatives (known as “originalists” because they hold that the meaning of the Constitution is its “original public meaning”) kept objecting that the role of the Supreme Court should not be to create laws but only to interpret the Constitution and the laws that had been passed by Congress and the state legislatures. But the six liberal justices paid no attention. They decided cases in light of their understanding of the needs of society, and they took more and more precedents not from the U. S. Constitution but from international laws.
From the end of 2009, Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito have been constantly outvoted 6-3, and they are essentially powerless. It might be 20 or 30 years before enough new appointmentscould be made to change the far-Left dominance of the Supreme Court.
Finally the far-Left had the highest prize: complete control of the Supreme Court. And they set about quickly to expedite cases by which they would enact the entire agenda of the far Left in American politics – everything they had hoped for and more took just a few key decisions.
Same-sex “marriage”
The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional” right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state
Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court had ruled, and the discussion was over. This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual “marriage” was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex “marriage” could be derived from their words. But it just followed the precedents that had been set by state supreme courts in Massachusetts (2003),2 California (2008)3 and Connecticut (2008).4
President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex “marriage”, but he told the nation there was nothing he could do. The Supreme Court had ruled, and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision. After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court cases were reversed rather quickly – raising the question, “Is America still the land of the free?”
(1) Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys. (This was to be expected with a change in the court, since the 2000 decision Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization to dismiss a homosexual scoutmaster, was a 5-4 decision, with Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer dissenting even then.) 5 It had become increasingly difficult for the Boy Scouts to find meeting places anyway, because in 2009 Congress passed and President Obama signed an expansion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which extended federal civil rights protections to people engaging in homosexual behavior. So the Boy Scouts had already been kicked out of all public facilities.
(2) Elementary schools: “The land of the free”? Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children from such sessions, but the courts have ruled they cannot do this, noting that education experts in the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health. Many Christian teachers objected to teaching first-graders that homosexual behavior was morally neutral and equal to heterosexuality. They said it violated their consciences to have to teach something the Bible viewed as morally wrong. But state after state ruled that their refusal to teach positively about homosexuality was the equivalent of hate speech, and they had to teach it or be fired. Tens of thousands of Christian teachers either quit or were fired, and there are
hardly any evangelical teachers in public schools any more.
Non-Christians found this hard to understand. “Why not just teach what the school says even if it’s not your personal opinion? So what? We can’t have every teacher deciding what he or she wants to teach, can we?” But the Christian teachers kept coming back to something Jesus said: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). And they quit by the thousands, no matter the personal cost, rather than commit what they believed to be a direct sin against God.
In addition, many private Christian schools decided to shut down after the Supreme Court ruled that anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation extended to private institutions such as schools,6 and that private schools also had to obey the law and teach that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both morally good choices.
(3) Adoption agencies: “The land of the free”? There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States. Following earlier rulings in New York 7and Massachusetts,8 the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that these agencies had to agree to place children with homosexual couples or lose their licenses. Just as the Catholic Charities adoption agency had closed down for this reason in Massachusetts in 2006,9 so all similar agencies across the United States have now closed down rather than violate their consciences about the moral wrong of homosexual behavior. Christian parents seeking to adopt have tried going through secular adoption agencies, but they are increasingly excluding parents with “narrow” or dangerous views on religion or homosexuality.
(4) Businesses with government contracts: “The land of the free”? All businesses that have government contracts at the national, state or local level now have to provide documentation of equal benefits for same-sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in place in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle.10
(5) Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as criticizing homosexual behavior. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These policies followed broadcasting and print restrictions that were in place prior to 2008 in Canada11 and Sweden.12
(6) Doctors and lawyers: “The land of the free”? Physicians who refuse to provide artificial insemination for lesbian couples now face significant fines or loss of their license to practice medicine, following the reasoning of a decision of the California Supreme Court in North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez), which was announced August 18, 2008.13 As a result, many Christian physicians have retired or left the practices of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology. Lawyers who refuse to handle adoption cases for same-sex couples similarly now lose their licenses to practice law.
(7) Counselors and social workers: “The land of the free”? All other professionals who are licensed by individual states are also prohibited from discriminating against homosexuals. Social workers and counselors, even counselors in church staff positions, who refuse to provide “professional, appropriately nurturing marriage counseling” for homosexual couples lose their counseling licenses.14 Thousands of Christians have left these professions as a result.
(8) Homosexual weddings: “The land of the free”? Church buildings are now considered a “public accommodation” by the Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. If they refuse, they lose their tax-exempt status, and they are increasingly becoming subject to fines and antidiscrimination lawsuits.15
(9) Homosexual church staff members: “The land of the free”? While churches are still free to turn down homosexual applicants for the job of senior pastor, churches and parachurch organizations are no longer free to reject homosexual applicants for staff positions such as parttime youth pastor or director of counseling. Those that have rejected homosexual applicants have had their tax-exempt status revoked, and now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has begun to impose heavy fines for each instance of such “discrimination,” which, they say, is “contrary to the U.S. Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court.” These fines follow the pattern of a precedent-setting case in February 2008, in which the Diocese of Hereford in the Church of England was fined $94,000 (47,000 UK pounds) for turning down a homosexual applicant for a youth ministry position.16
(10) Homosexuals in the military: One change regarding the status of homosexuals did not wait for any Supreme Court decision. In the first week after his inauguration, President Obama invited homosexual rights leaders from around the United States to join him at the White House as he signed an executive order directing all branches of the military to abandon their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and to start actively recruiting homosexuals.17 As a result, homosexuals are now given special bonuses for enlisting in military service (to attempt to compensate for past discrimination), and all new recruits, and all active-duty and reserve personnel, are compelled to take many hours of “sensitivity training” to ensure they demonstrate positive attitudes toward those with different sexual orientations and practices. Any one who seems hesitant or who objects is routinely passed over for promotion. In addition, any chaplain who holds to an interpretation of Scripture that homosexual conduct is morally wrong and therefore does not espouse “mainstream values,” is dismissed from the military.18 This is not “the land of the free” for them.
Religious speech in the public square
(11) High schools: “The land of the free”? High schools are no longer free to allow “See You at the Pole” meetings where students pray together, or any student Bible studies even before or after school. The Supreme Court ruled this is considered speech that is both “proselytizing” and involves “worship,” special categories of speech which, as liberal Justice John Paul Stevens argued in his dissent in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), should not be allowed in public schools, since it is in a different category from other kinds of speech.19 (Justice Souter filed a similar dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined). The new 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court followed his reasoning and outlawed any use of school property for any kind of religious meeting, even outside of normal school hours. In addition, Christian students cannot raise religious objections to curriculum material that promotes homosexual behavior.
(12) Church use of school property: “The land of the free”? Tens of thousands of young churches suddenly had no place to meet when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools in all 50 states had to stop allowing churches to rent their facilities – even on Sundays, when school was not in session. The court said this was an unconstitutional use of government property for a religious purpose. Most of these churches have been unable to find any suitable place to meet. Public libraries and public parks are similarly excluded from allowing churches to use their facilities. Once again, the reasoning of liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg in 2001 in Good News Club (see above) was able to garner 6-3 support with the new court.
(13) Campus ministries: “The land of the free”? Campus organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity, Navigators, Baptist Campus Ministry, and Reformed University Fellowship have shrunk to skeleton organizations, and in many states they have ceased to exist.
After the Supreme Court ruled that “proselytizing” speech and “worship” speech did not have the same First Amendment protection as other speech, and after it declared same-sex “marriage” to be the law of the United States, a subsequent Supreme Court decision predictably ruled that universities had to prohibit campus organizations that promote “hate speech” and have discriminatory policies. Therefore these Christian ministries have been prohibited from use of campus buildings, campus bulletin boards, advertising in campus newspapers, and use of dormitory rooms or common rooms for Bible studies.20 Their staff members are no longer allowed on university property. The only ministries allowed to function on campuses are “nondiscriminatory” ministries that agree to allow practicing homosexuals and members of other religions on their governing boards. With the new Supreme Court appointed by President Obama, the long years of liberal opposition to these evangelical ministries finally bore fruit, and only liberal ministries are left on campuses.
(14) Pledge of Allegiance: “The land of the free”? Public school teachers are no longer free to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. The 9th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the phrase “under God” in the Pledge, and, as it had in 2002 in Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., it held the wording to be unconstitutional. Now the Supreme Court has upheld this decision.
Abortion
(15) Freedom of Choice Act: Congress lost no time in solidifying abortion rights under President Obama. In fact, Obama had promised, “The first thing I’ll do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (July 17, 2007, speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).21 This federal law immediately nullified hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.22 States can no longer require parental involvement for minors who wish to have an abortion, waiting period, informed consent rules, restrictions on tax-payer funding or restrictions on late-term abortions. The act reversed the Hyde Amendment, so the government now funds Medicaid abortions for any reason. As a result, the number of abortions has increased dramatically. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born. States whose laws were overturned challenged the law in court but it was upheld by the Obama Supreme Court. “The land of the free”? There is no freedom for these infants who are killed by the millions.
(16) Nurses and abortions: “The land of the free”? Nurses are no longer free to refuse to participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.23 If they refuse to participate, they lose their jobs, for they are now failing to comply with federal law. Many Christian nurses have left the health care field rather than violate their consciences. A number of Christian nurses challenged their loss of jobs in court, but the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals do not have the freedom to refuse nonessential, elective care on the basis of conscience. In its decision, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in the 2008 Benitez case (see section (6) above).24
(17) Doctors and abortions: “The land of the free”? The same restrictions apply to doctors: Doctors who refuse to perform abortions can no longer be licensed to deliver babies at hospitals in any state. As a result, many Christian doctors have left family medicine and obstetrics, and many have retired.
Pornography
(18) Pornography: “The land of the free”? It’s almost impossible to keep children from seeing pornography. The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts. As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts. The court applied more broadly the “Miller test” from the 1973 decision in Miller v. California, by which a work could not be found obscene unless “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.” In the 2011 decision, the court essentially found that any pornographic work had some measure of “serious artistic value,” at least according to some observers, and thus any censorship of pornographic material was an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment. In addition, all city and county laws restricting pornography were struck down by this decision. As a result, pornographic magazines are openly displayed in gas stations, grocery stores and on newsstands (as they have been in some European countries for several years).
Gun ownership
(19) Guns: “The land of the free”? It is illegal for private citizens to own guns for self defense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships. This was the result of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in which the court reversed its 5-4 decision that had upheld private gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).25 In the new decision, a response to test cases from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Vermont, the court adopted the view of the Second Amendment that had been defended in Heller by the four liberal justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.26 In this new decision, the court specified that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” was limited to that purpose specified in the Second Amendment, namely, to those people who were part of a “well regulated militia” in the various states. To those who argued that this view was not the “original intent” of the framers, they pointed to a long history of dispute over the interpretation of the expression and then said that, in any case, the Constitution was an “evolving” document that must change with the times, and so what may have been applicable in 1790 need no longer be decisive. Therefore they allowed cities and states to limit gun ownership to active-duty military personnel and police officers. Citizens in those areas who are discovered owning guns have been subjected to heavy fines and imprisonment. Inner-city violent crime has increased dramatically.
Education
(20) Home schooling: “The land of the free”? Parents’ freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted. The Supreme Court, to the delight of the National Education Association, followed the legal reasoning of a February 28, 2008, ruling in Re: Rachel L by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in California (although that ruling was later reversed).27 In the later case, the Supreme Court declared that home schooling was a violation of state educational requirements except in cases where the parents (a) had an education certificate from an accredited state program., (b) agreed to use state-approved textbooks in all courses, and (c) agreed not to teach their children that homosexual conduct is wrong, or that Jesus is the only way to God, since these ideas have been found to hinder students’ social adjustment and acceptance of other lifestyles and beliefs, and to run counter to the state’s interest in educating its children to be good citizens. Parents found in violation of this ruling have been subject to prosecutions for truancy violation, resulting in heavy fines and eventual removal of their children from the home.28 Thousands of home schooling parents, seeing no alternative in the United States, have begun to emigrate to other countries, particularly Australia29and New Zealand,30 where home schooling is still quite prevalent. President Obama’s response to the Supreme Court After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were the law of the land.
Military policy
In his role as commander in chief, President Obama has been reluctant to send our armed forces to any new overseas commitment.
(21) Iraq: “The home of the brave”? President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and began regular withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, completing it in the promised 16 months, by April 2010.31 All was peaceful during those months, but then in May 2010, Al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran poured into Iraq and completely overwhelmed the Iraqi security forces. A Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to death may soon reach the millions. Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling the American “defeat” and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries.
(22) Terrorist attacks: “The home of the brave”? President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a warrant for each case. Terrorists captured overseas, instead of being tried in military tribunals, are given full trials in the U.S. court system, and they have to be allowed access to a number of government secrets to prepare their defense. Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe. President Obama in each case has vowed “to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” but no arrests have been made. However, he has challenged the nation to increase foreign aid to the poorer nations that were the breeding grounds for terrorism, so people could have an opportunity to escape from the cycles of poverty and violence in which generations had been trapped.
(23) Russia: “The home of the brave”? As Vice President Joe Biden had predicted on Oct. 20, 2008, some hostile foreign countries “tested” President Obama in his first few months in office. 32 The first test came from Russia. In early 2009, they followed the pattern they had begunin Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries, starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. President Obama appealed to the United Nations (UN), taking the same approach he had in his initial statements when Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008: “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war,” and “All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis,”33 But Russia sits on the Security Council, and no U.N. action has yet been taken. Then in the next three years, Russia occupied additional countries that had been previous Soviet satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, with no military response from the U.S. or the U.N. NATO heads of state have severely condemned Russia’s actions each time but they could never reach consensus on military action. Liberal television commentators in both the U.S. and Europe have uniformly expressed deep regret at the loss of freedom of these countries but have also observed that “the U.S. cannot be the world’s policeman.”
President Obama’s popularity dropped somewhat after each of these crises, but media criticism was remarkably muted. And Vice President Joe Biden reminded the nation that on October 20, 2008, he had predicted that Russia might be one of “four or five scenarios” where an “international crisis” would arise. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,” he said. And Obama will have to make “some incredibly tough decisions,” and that “it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”34
(24) Latin America: President Obama has also moved to deepen U.S. ties and U.S. trade with communist regimes in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, regimes that had long enjoyed the favor of far-Left factions in the Democratic Party. Several other Latin American countries seem ready to succumb to insurgent communist revolutionary factions funded and armed by millions of petrodollars from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
(25) Israel: “The home of the brave”? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed. Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.
Health care
(26) Health care systems: The new Congress under President Obama passed a nationalized “single provider” health care system, in which the U.S. government is the provider of all health care in the United States, following the pattern of nationalized medicine in the United Kingdom and Canada. The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone – if you can get it. Now that health care is free, it seems everybody wants more of it. The waiting list for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years. Just as the Canadian experience had shown prior to 2008 with its nationalized health care, so in the U.S. only a small number of MRIs are performed – down 90% from 2008 – because they are too expensive, and they discover more problems that need treatment, so they are almost never authorized.
(27) Limited care for older Americans: “The land of the free”? Because medical resources must be rationed carefully by the government, people older than 80 have essentially no access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their “duty” is increasingly thought to be to go home to die, so they don’t drain scarce resources from the medical system. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.
Taxes, the economy and the poor:
Many Christians who voted for Obama did so because they thought his tax policies were fairer and his “middle-class tax cuts” would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis. But once he took office, he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and his own record and asked Congress for a large tax increase. He explained the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we couldn’t afford to cut taxes. And several of Obama’s economic policies have hurt the poor because they have decreased production and increased inflation and unemployment. Here is what happened:
(28) Taxes: Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations, and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled. The effect on the economy has been devastating. We have experienced a prolonged recession. Everyone has been hurt by this, but the poor have been hurt most. In dozens of cities, there are no jobs to be found.
It turns out that the people President Obama called “the rich” were not all that rich. They were just ordinary people who worked hard, saved, and built small businesses that provided jobs and brought economic growth. They kept inventing new and better ways to produce things and bring prices down. They produced the goods and services that gave us the highest standard of living in history. They provided the competition that kept prices low. And the top 50% of earners were already paying 97% of income taxes collected by the U.S. government in 2006.
President Obama increased their tax burden so much that many business owners decided they didn’t want to work any harder when the government was taking so much away. “The land of the free?” Not for the most productive workers in the American economy. Just as nearly 2 million citizens in the decade prior to 2008 had moved out of California and New York when the Democrats had control and kept raising state taxes, many of these entrepreneurs have moved their money, their factories, and often themselves, overseas. So many jobs have been lost that welfare rolls have swelled, and President Obama is calling for more taxes to meet the needs of those without work. However, Obama’s tax bill still included “tax credits” for the lowest 40% of earners, who were said to “need the most help.” Since the bottom 40% were not paying any federal income taxes in the first place, these “tax cuts” were actually a gigantic redistribution of income, a huge welfare payment, a way to “spread the wealth around,”35 as Obama told “Joe the Plumber” on
October 13, 2008.
When critics objected that Obama’s tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America’s materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal.
(29) Budget deficit: The federal budget deficit has increased dramatically under President Obama, in spite of higher tax rates. Increasing tax rates on “the rich” did nothing to reduce the deficit because the economy shrank so much with reduced investment that the total dollars collected in taxes actually decreased – even though most people’s tax rate is now higher. As numerous economists had predicted, higher tax rates meant that the government took in less money. When reporters asked Obama why he still favored higher taxes on the rich when it brought in no more money, he replied that it was important that the rich pay their fair share.
(30) Union organizing: “The land of the free”? In 2009, Congress passed and President Obama quickly signed a “card check” program that nullified the requirement for secret ballots when voting on whether workers wanted a union shop.36 Now the union has to get signatures from a majority of workers in any business, and unions around the country are using strong-arm tactics to intimidate anyone who stands in their way. Several industries are completely unionized, and prices of goods produced by those industries have shot up as a result.
(31) Energy: World demand for oil continues to climb, and prices keep going up, but President Obama for four years has refused to allow additional drilling for oil in the United States or offshore. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output. But working Americans are hit hard by these costs. Nuclear energy would provide a substitute for oil in some cases, and could generate electricity to power electric cars, but environmentalist legal challenges have prevented the construction of nuclear plants, and the courts have been leaning so far in a pro-environmentalist direction that nobody expects the construction of nuclear plants for several decades, if ever. Obama keeps reminding people we cannot guarantee it will be safe.
As for coal, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to implement strict new carbon emission standards that drove many coal-powered electric plants out of business. The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation. The price of electricity has tripled in places like California, which also faces rolling blackouts during peak energy periods. The impact on our economy, and our homes, has been devastating.
Talk radio
Through the actions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress, Democrats were able to largely silence the largest source of conservative opposition: talk radio. (32) Fairness Doctrine: “The land of the free”? By the summer of 2009, the five-member FCC was controlled by Democratic appointees – including a chairman appointed by President Obama. The “Fairness Doctrine” became a topic of FCC consideration following pressure from Democratic congressional leaders who initially did not have sufficient votes to pass the measure. The FCC quickly implemented the “Fairness Doctrine,” which requires that radio stations provide “equal time” for alternative views on political or policy issues.
As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Janet Parshall, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal “watchdog” group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically, and nearly all conservative stations have gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010. In order to solidify the Fairness Doctrine at the FCC, Congress in 2010 passed, and President Obama signed, legislation making it permanent. Many legal scholars had predicted the Fairness Doctrine would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the liberal Obama court upheld it easily. Of course, this bill fit the deeper purpose of the liberal-Left wing of American politics, which trumps all other purposes, and that is getting and increasing its power so as to impose its agenda on the nation. It was not surprising the liberal Supreme Court went along.
Christian publishers
(33) Christian books: After the Supreme Court legalized same “sex marriage,” homosexual-activist groups targeted three large Christian book publishers that had publications arguing that homosexual conduct was wrong based on the teachings of the Bible. The activists staged marches and protests at Barnes & Noble stores around the country, demanding the stores remove all books published by these “hate-mongering” publishers. Barnes & Noble resisted for a time, but the protests continued, there was vandalism and secret defacing of books, and eventually the cost was too great and Barnes & Noble gave in. The same thing happened at Borders and other chains. Then they staged a massive nationwide computer attack on Amazon.com, with the same demands, and the same result. As a result, those evangelical publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains. Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.
Prosecution of Bush administration officials
(34) Criminal charges against Republican officials: In his first week in office, Obama followed President Clinton’s precedent and fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, replacing them with his own appointments, including the most active members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). President Obama argued this was not a selective political action like what President Bush had done, because Obama had fired all of them, conservatives and liberals alike. The Justice Department soon began to file criminal and civil charges against nearly every Bush administration official who had any involvement with the Iraq war.37 During his campaign, Senator Obama said, “What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued.”38 In order to facilitate these proceedings, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s executive order that had prevented presidential papers from being released, and millions of pages of previously secret White House papers were posted on the Internet. ACLU attorneys have spent four years poring over these papers looking for possible violations of law. Dozens of Bush officials, from the Cabinet level on down, are in jail, and most of them are also bankrupt from legal costs.
Where is the opposition? Has America completely lost God’s favor and protection as a nation? If it has, is this surprising? How can God continue to bless a nation whose official policies promote blatantviolation of God’s commands regarding the protection of human life, and sexual morality? Why should God bless any nation that elects officials who remove people’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom even to raise their own children? His Word says, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
Many brave Christian men and women tried to resist these laws, and some Christian legal agencies tried to defend them, but they couldn’t resist the power of a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court. It seems many of the bravest ones went to jail or were driven to bankruptcy. And many of their reputations have been destroyed by a relentless press and the endless repetition of false accusations.
The same question written in “The Star Spangled Banner” by Francis Scott Key in 1814
rings in the air:
O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Now in October 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, the answer to that question is “No.” Our freedoms have been systematically taken away. Many of “the brave” are in jail. We are no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” How did this happen?
When did this all start? Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for a “change,” and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years). Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – 39 they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.
Many people thought he sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable. And during the campaign, after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his speeches, moving away from his far-Left record. No one thought he would enact such a far-Left, extreme liberal agenda.
But the record was all there for anyone to see. The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the agenda of the global-warming activists, the agenda of the abortion-rights activists, the agenda of the gun-control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world government pacifists, the agenda of far-Left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn’t want to see it.
Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history.
What about our faith?
Personally, I don’t know how we are going to get through tomorrow, for these are difficult times. But my faith in the Lord remains strong. I still believe that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). I still believe “kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). I still believe our salvation comes from no earthly government for “there is salvation in no one else” than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and though I don’t know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately be accomplished. He alone can say of all history, “There is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:9-10).
Sincerely,
A Christian from 2012
1 “Election could decide fate of Roe, other big court issues,” USA Today, October 6, 2008.
2 Goodridge v. Department of Health, decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, November 18, 2003.
3 In re: Marriage Cases, decided by the California State Supreme Court, May 15, 2008.
4 Kerrigan v, Commissioner of Public Health, decided by the Connecticut State Supreme Court, October 10, 2008.
5 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 28, 2000.
6 Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, May 15, 2006
7 http://www.adopthelp.com/alternativeadoptions/alternatives2.html
8 Gallagher, op.cit
9 Patricia Wen, “Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions,” Boston Globe March 11, 2006
10 http://www.azpolicy.org/pdf/GFI/H4HomosexualDomesticPartnerBenefits.pdf
11 John Henry Weston, “Canadian Broadcast Regulators: Gay Toronto Radio OK, Catholic Radio No Way”
LifeSite.com, April 6, 2006.
12 Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Fate of Religious Liberty, Heritage Foundation Symposium, May 22, 2008.
13 North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Benitez, decided by the California State Supreme Court, August 18,
2008.
14 The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) presently has a case involving a woman who was fired by the Centers for
Disease Control for declining to offer counseling for a same-sex relationship, but referred the client to another
counselor who would help. See Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, filed in federal district court, July 14, 2008.
15 Robert Bluey, “‘Marriage’ Changes May Shake Churches’ Tax Exemptions,” CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004.
16 See http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080212/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/
17 See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/10/obama.gay.ap/index.html
18 See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/03/politics/main2057198.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2057198
19 Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools, dissent written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, June 11,
2001.
20 These cases are unfortunately common on many public university campuses. ADF has several examples from public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rutgers University, University of California-San
Diego, to name just a few.
21 See http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007601.cfm
22 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
23 The Freedom of Choice Act: Endangering Women and Silencing the Voices of Everyday Americans, See
http://www.aul.org/FOCA
24 North Coast, op.cit.
25 District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the United States Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
26 Ibid,
27 In re; Rachel L, decided by California Court of Appeal, Second District, August 8, 2008.
28 Alan Sears, What began in Germany has come to the U.S.
See http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4431
29 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
30 http://homeschooling.families.com/blog/homeschooling-around-the-world-australia-amp-new-zealand
31 “Obama Calls Iraq War a ‘Dangerous Distraction,” CNN.com, July 15, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
32 See http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/news/politics/joe_doh_puts_o_in_crisis_mode_134547.htm
33 Barack Obama Statement on Georgia Crisis, August 8, 2008
34 ABC News online, Oct. 20, 2008.
35 “Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will ‘Spread the Wealth Around'”, Fox News.com. October 13, 2008.
Seehttp://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/
36 Donald Lambro, “Obama supports union organizing,” Washington Times, July 31, 2008.
37 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-would-immediately-r_n_96690.html and
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html
38 Ibid.
39 Brian Friel, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007,” National Journal’s 2007 Vote Ratings,
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/, January 31, 2008
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/files/Focusletter.pdf
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )Double Standard Alert: Two arrested for Obama Effigy
Hmmmm. How very interesting! I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!!!!! A Palin effigy and no one is the least bit concerned. An Obama effigy and the boys get arrested!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!! Obama becoming president would be a step towards a dictatorship.
Two arrested in connection with Obama effigy
By Beth Musgrave – bmusgrave@herald-leader.com
University of Kentucky officials announced the arrest of a student and his friend in connection with an effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that was found on the campus Wednesday.
UK police said the two men told them the act was in response to news reports of an effigy of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in California.
Joe Fischer, 22, a UK senior and once a football team walk-on, and a friend, Hunter Bush, 21, were charged Thursday with burglary, theft and disorderly conduct.
Police said items to make the effigy were stolen from a fraternity house and that Fischer and Bush turned themselves in Thursday.
LINK: http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/574615.html
Video: Why I am a Conservative Republican
Watch this great video!!
Why I am a Conservative Republican
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acQluy7nymw&feature=related
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Elementary Schools Promoting Homosexual Agenda
Have y’all (those in California) seen that lying commercial where some school official says vote “no on 8” because they don’t even discuss homosexuality in schools? He’s trying to make folks think we’re over-reacting to the gay marriage prop (prop 8). Well, here we have more proof that he’s lying. Schools are certainly promoting homosexuality and it’s going to get worse if prop 8 gets voted down. You can look at some of my past posts to see more examples of this.
Elementary schools promoting homosexual agenda
Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper – OneNewsNow
California parents learned too late that some of their young children were being taught to accept homosexuality.
Brad Dacus, founder of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says the indoctrination at “Coming Out Day” involved children as young as kindergarten at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science in Hayward, California.
“This is an event where they have pictures [and] posters up, telling stories and encouraging people who feel that they are homosexual or opposite gender to freely express that and articulate and affirm that,” Dacus explains.
According to a PJI press release, parents noticed that the posters — which claimed to promote families — depicted homosexual “families” only. The legal firm says the school is continuing to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month for the rest of October, but parents are being ignored in the process.
“There’s been no opportunity for parents to opt out, no consideration and tolerance for the wide diversity of parents’ views and perspectives that are different than this,” Dacus points out.
On November 20, the school will host “TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud,” where students will hear adapted tales such as “Jane and the Beanstalk.”
“Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?” the Christian attorney asks.
Dacus is certain there are outraged California parents curious about what they can do to stop the indoctrination. “The parents who would like to contest or would like to fight it should contact us at Pacific Justice Institute,” he adds.
LINK: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=302440
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Something’s fishy about Obama: Aunt lives in slum, birth cert. sealed, untraceable donations
Here are just a few tidbits you might want to read more about…
Did you know…?
• Obama’s birth certificate has been sealed by Hawaii’s governor?
If Obama truly was born in Hawaii and not Kenya (which would make him ineligible for the Presidency), then why won’t he let us see his real birth certificate?
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
————————————————————————————-
• There’s an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose in West Hollywood and it’s called fun Halloween art, but an Obama effigy found hanging in Kentucky is called disgusting?
Double-standard alert!!!!!
LINK: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,3849487.story
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79437
———————————————————————————–
• Obama’s aunt lives in a Boston slum?
Hmmm…I wonder why he wants the rest of us to give our hard-earned money to others, but he won’t do the same for his aunt??
LINK: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5042571.ece
———————————————————————————-
• Campaign officials confirmed that Obama is accepting untraceable donations that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity?
I guess the Obamaniacs will overlook this also.
LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Obama Speechwriter Switches to McCain; Ignored by MSM
Yep, one more story ignored by the MSM.
Obama Speechwriter Switches to McCain;
Ignored by MSM
newsbusters.com
Imagine if a speechwriter for John McCain had switched sides and announced she was going to vote for Barack Obama. Would she not be featured bigtime in the mainstream media complete with new thrills running up Chris Matthews leg? Well, this did happen except that it was an Obama speechwriter, Wendy Button, who became disillusioned with The One and switched supporting McCain. Here are the highlights of Wendy Button’s explanation of why she made the switch:
Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”
Young lady, only when the switch is made from Republican to Democrat will it be mentioned in the MSM. They search the country for “lifelong Republicans” who are going to vote for Obama but when an Obama speechwriter switches over to the “Dark Side,” all you will hear from the MSM is the sound of crickets chirping.
When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.
I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.
…The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”
Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”-a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.
As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”
The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
…Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.
But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
…Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot-that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.
Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”
…I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points-that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush-are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
Wow! Pretty strong stuff. However, Wendy, don’t expect any accolades from the MSM for making your political switch in the “wrong direction.” Oh, and I highly doubt you will ever again be permitted to post to your Huffington Post blog.
(LINK: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/29/obama-speechwriter-switches-mccain-ignored-msm
LINK: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-28/so-long-obama/1/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )How is it possible that a Domestic Terrorist Can Get Tenure??
This is such a great article by Mike Adams!! It is still unbelievable to me that Bill Ayers not only is NOT serving a prison sentence, but that he is a TENURED PROFESSOR. He advocates domestic terrorism, engaged in it, and even said he regrets he didn’t do more. It’s sickening who we allow to teach on our college campuses. And this is one of Obama’s friends???
How I Bombed an Abortion Clinic and Still Got Tenure
by Mike S. Adams
Ann Potts, an Assistant Professor in the Watson School of Education, has disgraced The University of North Carolina at Wilmington by signing a petition in support of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers – himself an education professor at The University of Illinois at Chicago. The real disgrace is actually twofold: First, there is her willingness to support Ayers. Second, there is her unwillingness to support me for engaging in similar actions years ago in pursuit of a very different political agenda.
Some years ago I was involved with a radical anti-abortion group that was frustrated with efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. We targeted two abortion clinics – one in Birmingham and the other in Atlanta – for bombings. We successfully carried out both of those bombings without killing anyone on the premises. We wanted to send our message – at least initially – without any unnecessary bloodshed.
After we carried out the bombings in Birmingham and Atlanta we gathered together in Charlotte, North Carolina for the express purpose of making a number of bombs that would be used in additional attacks on abortion clinics throughout the Southeast. Regrettably, an accident occurred during the construction of those additional bombs. Several members of our group died during the unexpected blast. Shortly thereafter, I left the group and decided to enter the field of higher education.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I do not regret my decision to engage in the bombings of those abortion clinics. In fact, I regret that we did not do more.
Some people on the Far Left in America are trying to hold the Pro Life movement accountable for actions I engaged in before Sarah Palin was even involved in politics. And no one in academia is willing to offer me forgiveness for actions I’ve never said I regretted. Ann Potts’ name is not on a petition of my academic supporters for one simple reason: I don’t have any.
For those who are not Swift enough to grasp satire let me explain something: You are presently reading satire.
Put simply, there is no chance that an unrepentant right-wing domestic terrorist could ever land a job in higher education in America. The “liberal” would prevent the white male abortion clinic bomber from teaching on the basis of identity politics. The conservative would arrive at the same conclusion on the basis of principle.
Lest you think that I am exaggerating turn back the clock eighteen months to the last time I spoke out against an academic leftist who supports violence as a means of disseminating his political views. Some readers remember when Kent State professor Julio Pino (jpino@kent.edu) publicly advocated the bombing of innocent Jews by Palestinian children.
I spoke out against Pino’s advocacy of violence by writing a column called “How to Bomb a Gay Bathhouse.” This was shortly after the controversy involving Ann Coulter’s use of the term “fag” to describe John Edwards. In that column, I suggested that Kent State hire Ann Coulter and allow her to construct a website advocating violence against gays since they were silent on the issue of Pino’s advocacy of violence against Jews.
When columnist Andrew Sullivan read my column there was much lisping and gnashing of teeth. Too dense and emotionally unstable to understand the satire, Sullivan dubbed me an “ugly bigot” and ran excerpts of my column on his website. And, even after having the satire explained to them, our student newspaper ran an editorial suggesting that I advocated domestic terrorism. The chancellor’s assistant, Cindy Lawson, made the dim-witted remark that my column was deplorable even if satire. Apparently, it was deplorable if advocating violence, but still deplorable if doing the opposite.
The way people to my left reacted to my column showed a great desire to find a conservative who advocates domestic terrorism – even in the absence of any evidence he’s engaged in terrorism – and to punish him for his advocacy of violence.
But, in the case of William Ayers (bayers@uic.edu), we have a leftist who not only advocates domestic terrorism but has actually carried out acts of terror in his own country. And those who accused me of advocating violence are now either a) unwilling to talk about Ayers, or b) actually willing to sign a petition supporting him.
Ann Potts, who taught at Virginia Tech when a student opened fire and killed nearly three dozen, is a reminder of just how intellectually and morally challenged one can be and still survive in the field of education. Her unrepentant idiocy is a call for the overthrow of the government-run education system – by non-violent means, of course.
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/10/27/how_i_bombed_an_abortion_clinic_and_still_got_tenure
Notorious Obamedia Moments of 2008
Another great article by Michelle Malkin.
Notorious Obamedia Moments of 2008
by Michelle Malkin
To paraphrase Queen Elizabeth II, 2008 is not a year on which honest journalists shall look back with undiluted pleasure. This has turned out to be even more of an annus horribilis than 2004, when Dan Rather’s fake Bush/National Guard memo fiasco redefined the “BS” in CBS News. There were so many mainstream journalists swimming in the Democratic tank this year, the nation’s newsrooms looked more like overcrowded aquariums at PetSmart.
In less than a week, the campaign season will be over. But the Obamedia’s most shameful biases and notorious blunders shall not be forgotten. Here are my Top Five, by no means comprehensive and in no particular order:
1. The Los Angeles Times and the suppressed Obama/Jew-bash videotape.
In April, L.A. Times reporter Peter Wallsten reported on a 2003 farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, a radical Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman/adviser turned Ivy League professor. The anti-Israel Arab American Action Network sponsored the gala. In attendance: good neighbors Barack Obama and Weather Underground terrorist duo Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
Wallsten reported that the “event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.” But the news organization refuses to let readers watch the video of Obama and his left-wing terrorist friends and will not release the tape. It’s “old news” now.
The paper had no problem, however, embedding a video clip of Sarah Palin’s 1984 swimsuit pageant on its gossip blog and deeming it newsworthy.
2. Ogling Obama.
In May, CNN posted “breaking news video” of female journalists on Obama’s press plane fawning over the Democratic presidential candidate as he talked on his cell phone. The caption listed on the network’s website: “Obama in jeans: Sen. Barack Obama surprises the press corps by wearing jeans.”
In the clip, several members of the press corps yell at a Secret Service agent to “sit down” because she’s obstructing the view of their beloved Obama. They giggle and sigh as Obama straddles over a row of seats and they furiously click away on their cameras. “You’re killing us,” one of them says breathlessly.
No, you’re killing yourselves.
Runners-up for Most Drool-Covered Groupies: The journalist who squealed “He touched me!” at the UNITY minority journalists’ convention in July; the MSNBC producer who broke down and shed tears of joy upon learning that The One had clinched the Democratic presidential nomination; MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who proclaimed that he “felt a thrill up his leg” after an Obama speech in February; Oprah Winfrey, who confessed she did a “happy dance” for Obama; and the writer for the German publication Bild, who worked out with Obama at the Ritz-Carlton in Berlin and reported: “I put my arm around his hip — wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!”
3. The Atlantic Monthly’s deranged photographer.
Publisher David Bradley’s once-esteemed magazine hired celebrity lens-woman Jill Greenberg to snap portraits of John McCain. Greenberg, an outspoken left-winger who goaded children into crying on film and captioned the images with anti-Bush slogans, sabotaged the photo shoot and gloated about it on a photo industry website.
After tricking McCain into standing over a strobe light to create ugly shadows on his face, she then posted vandalized versions of the imagery on her personal website with crude, vulgar labels. One featured McCain with fangs and blood dripping from his mouth — with the Greenberg-added words, “I am a bloodthirsty warmongerer (sic).” Another piece of her “art” showed an ape (a favorite Greenberg subject) defecating on McCain’s head. The highly respected editors at Atlantic professed shock despite Greenberg’s notoriety. The name of her blog: “Manipulator.”
4. The quote doctors and math-manglers at CNN.
In a botched attack on Sarah Palin, CNN reporter Drew Griffin cited National Review writer Byron York allegedly questioning Palin’s abilities and character: “The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can’t tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above.” York, however, was characterizing the press coverage of Palin.
In a botched tally, CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien proclaimed that an audience poll showed “overwhelming” preference for Joe Biden after the vice presidential debate. A freeze frame of the show of hands, however, showed the audience split. The mathematically challenged O’Brien also claimed that Palin slashed Alaska’s special needs budget by 62 percent (which she recycled from the liberal Daily Kos blog), despite the fact that the governor increased special needs funding by 12 percent. Facts, schmacts.
5. Us Magazine publisher Jann Wenner’s Obama apparatchiks.
The gossip mag’s partisan slime job on Palin and her family (“Babies, lies, and scandal”) last September opened the floodgates of Palin-bashing across the mainstream media and was the nadir of the year. Wenner — a prominent Obama backer who ran countless hagiographies of him in sister publication Rolling Stone and featured the Obamas with the slavering headline “Why Barack Loves Her” on Us Magazine’s June cover — had his media flack e-mail the anti-Palin hit piece to all media in St. Paul for the Republican National Convention: “Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out,” the flack wrote.
Indeed, the side-by-side covers of the Palin smears and the Obamas’ deification perfectly illustrate the year in Obamedia.
LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/10/29/notorious_obamedia_moments_of_2008?page=1
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Hollywood Insiders Rip MSNBC – Bloodworth-Thomason Defends Palin
Wow, you know the media has gone over the line when Linda Bloodworth-Thomason thinks they’ve gone too far!! She said she’d rather have lunch with Hannity than with Keith Olbermann – that’s amazing!! And people are still trying to tell us that the mainstream media is not biased???? Oh please!!! Read below for more details…
Hollywood insiders rip MSNBC, defend Palin
By Paul Bond
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is “completely out of control,” said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.
She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday’s luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed “Hollywood, America and Election ’08.”
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC — and other media — has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
“We should stop the demonizing,” she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. “It diminishes us,” she said of her fellow Democrats.
Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show “Designing Women.”
Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because “I actually get death threats.”
“I’ll stop sending them,” joked Larry Gelbart, the writer, producer and director best known for the “M*A*S*H” television series and such movie screenplays as “Tootsie” and “Oh, God!”
Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is “the only network with more letters in its name than viewers.”
On a more serious note, Luntz said it’s a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.
Luntz predicted a Barack Obama victory and said that one of the many reasons the Democrats have been more effective with their message is because, while Republicans dominate talk radio, Democrats have begun to dominate the Internet.
“I’d rather have the Internet,” he said.
Obama also gets credit because he’s a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz.”
Actress Patricia Heaton noted that Hollywood workers too often just assume everyone they work with is a like-minded liberal. When those around her belittle John McCain or Palin, the former “Everybody Loves Raymond” co-star politely reminds them that she’s a Republican.
“That’s what you have to do in our town,” she said.
Actor Beau Bridges lamented that there is “too much entertainment” in elections nowadays. “Just put ’em in a room — like we are now — and let ’em talk about the issues,” he said.
Some of the most spirited debate came from the panel’s moderator, outspoken conservative Lionel Chetwynd. The writer, director and producer passionately defended the Iraq War and Palin, whom he called “the ideal Jeffersonian political figure.”
Chetwynd’s performance prompted Gelbart to joke that Chetwynd was the most “immoderate moderator” he had ever seen.
“It’s a liberal organization,” Chetwynd said of the Caucus. “But I’m trying.”
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
LINK: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49R0GK20081028
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )« Previous Entries
Don't Get Me Started... 