Congress Finally Does Something Right

on Friday, November 21, 2008

...well, sort of. But if you can believe it, I actually agree with Nancy Pelosi for once:

Congressional efforts to rescue Detroit's auto makers collapsed Thursday, with lawmakers saying the industry lacked credible plans to return to profitability.

The decision came after two days in which leaders of three of America's largest corporations pleaded for a taxpayer-financed rescue from lawmakers in front of a national television audience. The spurning of their pleas leaves in question the future of companies that have been synonymous with American industry for decades and together employ 239,000 people in the U.S.

Democrats in Congress offered only a glimmer of hope, saying they would reconsider a rescue if General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC submit convincing turnaround plans by Dec. 2.

"Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat.
Don't get too excited about a fiscally conservative turnaround from our friend Pelosi, though, as the same article later states that Congress is still planning to make a $10 billion check written out to "cash" for Detroit in the weeks to come...

These guys just don't seem to get it, do they? They roll up on Washington tarmacs in their private, executive jets and then walk into a congressional session with absoultely no business plan whatsoever - and then they have the nerve to ask Congress for $25 billion of our tax money.

Amazing, isn't it?

The underlying problem here is that Detroit wants to use these bailout funds to pursue the very same business model that got them into this mess in the first place! Unless Detroit gets serious about making some drastic changes, the only thing a bailout will do is push the inevitable bankruptcy back another 6-12 months. Mitt Romney sums it up nicely in this op-ed piece for the New York Times:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
...and that's coming from the mouth of a guy who was born in Detroit and whose father was even the president of American Motors.

Look, if the government really wanted to help, they have plenty of options at their disposal - none of which that would cost $10 billion. For starters, it's time to cancel some of the union contracts that are pulling Detroit into the water with them as they drown. Second, Washington needs to ease up on the CAFE standards. Does anybody besides Washington find it wise to burden an already struggling industry with further, more expensive environmental standards that they can't afford?

It's time we demand that Washington says "enough" to these endless bailouts. According to Forbes magazine, the cost of the original $700 billion bailout is now up to $5 trillion! Think about that for a second... 5. Trillion. Dollars. And yet this bailout, that was supposed to solve the whole economic crisis mind you, hasn't done jack for the market. Did you see the Dow Jones or S&P 500 yesterday? The S&P is at an 11-year low. But wait, Washington, you told us that this bailout was going to fix the market.

I've never supported any part of this bailout. It's not working, everybody wants a piece, and we can't even afford it in the first place. It's not like Washington has $5 trillion in some drawer somewhere that they can pull out and use for this. They're printing it! In fact, they're printing it faster than your local neighborhood burger joint can print McNapkins. But if if you guys in Congress are so set on printing it anyway, then give it to the American people! My back of the envelope math says that $5 trillion evenly distributed to the American public amounts to almost $17,000 per person - every man, woman, child, and infant. Does anybody here not think that if Washington gave a household of 4 a check for $68,000 - and then did the same for every household in America - that it wouldn't supercharge the economy?

But instead, Washington would rather give that money to the very same people that misappropriated it in the first place. Brilliant, Congress.

What Democracy?...

on Wednesday, November 19, 2008

So, apparently, voting on a public matter of legislation only matters when the public votes the way liberals want them to...

...otherwise, the votes don't count:

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported...

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger told CNN. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
This is absurd. For weeks now opponents of California's proposition 8 have rioted in the streets accusing prop 8 supporters of bigotry and hate, but so far the only bigotry and hate I've witnessed has come from the gay rights activists themselves.

First, they boycotted restaurants and theaters owned by individuals who donated to support prop 8, which ultimately even cost one man his job. Then they published a blacklist website listing the personal information of "Yes on 8" donors with the heading: "The following individuals or organizations have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them." And now:

A letter containing white powder was discovered at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City [a few days ago]. The scare shut down a temple annex building for more than an hour.

About the same time, another envelope filled with white powder forced the closure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles.
I'm gonna call this exactly what it is - a hissy fit. A temper tantrum. Did you see any conservatives rushing the streets and protesting in front of Trinity United Church in Chicago when we lost our election on November 4? Did we boycott any establishments that had an "Obama" sign hanging in the window? Did we start a website that listed the personal information of Obama donors calling for the "blacklisting" of such individuals?

If we had done any of the above, the left would be breathing into a paper bag. But opponents of prop 8 can send anthrax-ish letters to Mormon establishments and everything is just dandy. Am I the only one seeing a frightening double standard here?

Look, I have never used this blog as a religious forum, and I intend to keep it that way in the future. But why is the Mormon church experiencing such a backlash? Is it because they donated funds to support proposition 8? Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that only opponents of prop 8 were legally allowed to donate to the cause.

It’s called democracy, people. Both sides donated heavily and campaigned fervently for their cause. And even though Mormons only account for 2% of California's entire population, last time I checked, the final vote on prop 8 was nowhere near 2% YES and 98% NO.

Look, if you gay rights activists can make an affirmative argument and pitch it to the majority of voters, then success is yours. If not, you got the outcome you deserved - twice now.

In a rare twist to the issue, however, supporters of prop 8 can probably credit Obama for getting prop 8 to pass since, as my brother notes, Obama's election resulted in record numbers of minoroties at the polls with blacks voting 70% YES on prop 8 and hispanics voting 65% YES.

Prediction: Gay rights activists will keep placing the issue on the ballot every 2 years until it passes, and then, once it finally does pass (which it ultimately will), they will try to stop the issue from ever going to the polls again in an attempt to prevent gay marriage from ever being overturned.

The new slogan of the liberal left: "Democracy for me, but not for thee"

Obama Vows to Make Healthcare Better By Making It Worse

on Friday, November 14, 2008

And so we take a journey into the demented realm of Obama wherein we find that, even though socialized medicine has failed in numerous countries across the globe, somehow The One feels that it will work out just fine here in America.

President-elect Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system would cost the federal government $75 billion the first year but would provide health insurance for 95 percent of Americans...

This works out to about $2,500 per newly insured person, the firm [PriceWaterhouseCoopers] said in a report.

"The plan would increase to $1 trillion cumulatively by 2018 or approximately $130 billion per year," the report said.

While the plan would extend health insurance to two-thirds of the 47 million people who currently lack it, the overhaul may worsen some problems, such as a shortage of primary care doctors, the analysis found.

"Unless costs are cut, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama's plan dramatically over time and reduce the effectiveness of mandates. This could make the federal costs unsustainably high," the report said.
Obama's plan for health care parallels the same health care structures that have failed miserably in Canada and Great Britain. But please Mr. Obama, pay no attention to the fact that the very man who came up with Canada's government-run health care system has now disowned it in embarrassing fasion:

As this presidential campaign continues [this article was written before the election, ed.], the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
(For the record, this is the same Canada that deports its own cancer-stricken residents just to save costs.)

And this situation isn't unique to just Canada. Just 3 weeks ago, it was reported that the NHS (Britain's government-run health care system) are themselves refusing to use the same health care services that they themselves run! Instead, they are turning to private health care for faster, more efficient treatment.

Shortages of doctors, longer lines to see a physician, bureaucrats in some Washington office making your health decisions for you, and higher taxes from you to pay for health care for the 32 million uninsured Americans who currently have access to health care, but otherwise have decided not to pay fot it or sign up themselves... Isn't Obama's "change" just awesome!?

...not that it matters though. Once Obama cures all known diseases through his grace, we won't need health care anyway.

So It Begins...

on Wednesday, November 12, 2008

All we ever heard about during the election was "change" this and "change" that. And yet, to my amazement, somehow nobody ever came to the realization that there IS such a thing as change for the worse.

And on that note, we take a windowless journey into Obama's legislative abyss where we find that socialism is creeping up on us much, much sooner than we think.

From Obama's own website:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start. least that's what it USED to say. Here's how the mandatory service agreement reads now, via Steve Gilbert:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit...
For what it's worth, this isn't the first time since being elected that Obama has scrubbed his website of phony, and even illegal, promises.

Here's my beef with the issue: Wasn't Obama a constituional law professor? If so, Barry may wish to head back to school himself for a refresher course on what the document he will soon swear to uphold says about manadatory service.


Amendment XIII
Consitution of The United States of America

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

My friends, this is how communism starts...

Obama's administration is starting to sound less like "Yes we can!" and more like "Yes you will!"


on Monday, November 10, 2008

...not to be confused with "abomination", although I'm not sure there's a difference.

My conscience told me not to get caught up in the hope that Obama would govern as he said he would, and not how his record showed he would. But after the appointment of partison hack Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff, and with rumors of John Kerry as a possible choice for Secretary of State, my utopia-filled dreams of a centrist government have now turned to nightmares akin to the horror of watching any movie starring Lindsay Lohan.

Which, oh which leftist policies will Barry use to break my heart by implementing first:

  • Freedom of Choice Act

  • Single-payer health care

  • Card Check

  • Defense cuts

  • Fairness Doctrine

  • Amnesty

  • Estate tax increases

  • Capital gains tax increases

  • Defense cuts

  • More bans on oil drilling

  • Global poverty tax

  • Elimination of the second amendment

  • Socialism / Spreading the wealth around

  • My nightmare. Nikita Khrushchev's dream come true:

    Change You Can Believe In... But Never Experience

    on Friday, November 7, 2008

    Is there anything Obama hasn't promised to do as president? Jake Tapper has compiled a nice list of all the "door prizes" Obama promised to every American while he was running for president. Here are some of my favorites:

  • Give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week

  • Not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax"

  • End those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas

  • Give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States (which contradicts the previous point, as corporations usually do both)

  • Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country

  • Invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade

  • Reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels and wind turbines

  • Build "a new electricity grid"

  • Eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years

  • If you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves

  • Recruit an army of new teachers

  • Make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts

  • End this war in Iraq

  • Finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden (which, again, somewhat contradicts the previous point as al Qaeda currently has groups stationed in Iraq)

  • Increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world

  • No more homeless veterans

  • No more fighting for disability payments

  • And that list doesn't even count all of the additional promises he made during his 30-minute infomercial. How is Obama going to pay for all of this while simultaneously promising tax breaks to 95% of working Americans??

    Answer: He isn't. Now that Obama has been elected, he is forming a comittee to "lower American's expectations" of everything he promised them:

    Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency... amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

    The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

    One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.
    There's nothing new or fresh about Obama. He's no different than every other liberal politican who panders and demagogues to appeal to the masses, and then, once he's finished using your back as a stepping stone to achieve his power, he forsakes every phony, unrealistic promise he made to you.

    That's the kind of change Obama believes in.

    Peggy Joseph is going to be heartbroken:

    Why I'm Not Voting For Barack Obama

    on Sunday, November 2, 2008

    So why aren't I voting for the same candidate endorsed by both the terrorist organization Hamas, as well as communist murderer Fidel Castro? Lotsa reasons:

    Who Is He

    Answer: Nobody knows. Obama’s resume is thin, and his teleprompter has been careful not to reveal his honest feelings on major political positions. So to understand who he truly is on the inside, we need to study those with whom he associates himself. After all, I tend to befriend people I agree with and I married a woman whose opinions I usually see eye-to-eye on. So let’s recap Barry’s buddies:

    His Wife
    Michelle Obama was only in the spotlight for a short period of time, during which she was able to confirm that (1) she hadn’t been proud of her country until her messianic husband started running for president, (2) she thinks America is an ignorant country, and (3) that America is a “downright mean” place to live. No wonder the Obama campaign pulled her off the mike. Has anyone even seen Michelle lately? So where does somebody get views like that in the first place?

    Reverend Wright
    This disgrace of a man has been reviewed extensively on this blog already. But in case you need a refresher, here are some of my favorite quotes from the Reverend Wright reel:

    William Ayers
    Bill Ayers is a former terrorist who was a member of the Weather Underground, a group responsible for multiple bombings and deaths at the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, military bases, and other law enforcement agencies. Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who was also the leader of the Weather Underground, has the unique resume tag of making it on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list. Obama launched his political campaign in Ayers’ and Dohrn’s living room. Ayers and Barack served on boards together - The Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - and have been friends for over a decade.

    When confronted with his association with Ayers, Barack first tried to claim that he didn’t know about Ayers’ past and that he was “just some guy in the neighborhood,” But CNN was quick to fact check these claims by Obama and ultimately ruled that his relationship with Ayers runs “much deeper” than Obama wants to admit. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, later confirmed that Obama did, in fact, know about Ayers’ past, yet Barack still continued to work with him. Obama then tried to spin his relationship by stating that he was only 8-years-old when Ayers committed his despicable acts. Well, read the recent words of Ayers himself in a post-9/11 interview regarding his actions at the Weather Underground:

    I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.
    Does that sound like a man who has changed his former hate-filled views? And if, by some freak means, you still think that Ayers has rehabilitated himself and no longer hates America, just have a look at a picture of Ayers taken earlier this year desecrating the American flag:

    Rashid Khalidi
    Khalidi is among the most radical of Obama’s associations; a man who harbors anti-Semitic views towards Israel, and was even the spokesman for Yasser Arafat’s terroristic organization, the PLO. Khalidi is even on record praising the terrorist bombings during the 1972 Munich Olympics. So what does Obama think of a man who harbors such opinions? To fully answer that question you’ll need to petition the The L.A. Times who has in their possession a video of Obama praising Khalidi at a speech a few years ago. The Times is refusing to release the video as it would make their candidate look bad. There are even rumors that the Khalidi’s babysat Barack and Michelle Obama’s children.

    And these are just a few of Obama’s friends. We also have Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan, Franklin Raines, and Reverend Pfleger to add to the mix if the punch ever gets watered down.

    Now many Obama supporters will claim that associates shouldn’t matter and that we all know people who have dirty laundry in their closets. I counter with this argument: They absolutely matter! Obama could have launched his political career anywhere in the world, instead HE CHOSE the living room of an unrepentant terrorist. Obama could have gone to any church in Chicago, instead HE CHOSE the church of Reverend Wright. He could have refused to speak at a terrorist-supporters banquet, instead HE CHOSE to lavish praise on such a man.

    Obama chose to associate with these people. He chose to befriend them. He chose to work with them. And if the reports hold true, he even chose them to babysit his kids. If Obama has made such an effort to associate with men and women who hold such horrible views of this country and our allies, why should we think that Barack Obama thinks any differently than they do?


    Obama served roughly 140 days as a U.S. senator before he felt he was experienced enough to be president. In fact, if Obama completes only one term as president, it will be the longest full-time job he’s ever held. All he’s ever done is use his newest political promotion as a platform on which to climb to a higher level of office. As such, he has an extremely thin record and is on record voting “present” on roughly 130 votes as a state senator – many of which were on extremely tough issues. And to all you Obama supporters out there who feel that he is best suited to help fix the economy, be advised that he was too cowardly to take any other position than “present” when he voted on the Fannie/Freddie reform. But to say that Obama hasn’t ever passed any legislation as a U.S. senator is misleading. After all, he did almost co-sponsor an ethics bill. What leadership!


    Senator Obama has often referred to his experience in educational reform as a highlight of his political career in Chicago. But just how successful was this reform? Look no further than the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Executive Summary Report for that answer. After Obama spent $50 million taxpayer dollars, the executive summary found that:

    There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain [and] any improvements were much like those occurring in demographically similar non-Annenberg schools… Classroom behavior, students' sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were [actually] weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge… In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn.
    So, after spending $50 million on educational reform, Obama’s schools were no better off than schools that got no new additional funding and, in fact, were more segregationist and less-respectful of each other than they were before Obama got his hands on them. Basically he failed miserably. What makes him think that he can run education, or anything else for that matter, better this time around?

    Foreign Policy

    I’m no big fan of McCain, but when it comes to matters of war and foreign policy, Obama knows he can’t hold a candle to McCain’s decades of military experience. And, like most liberal Democrats, Obama tends to act more on emotion than rationale when forming his executive foreign policy opinions.

    Exibit A
    Bask in the nuance of his retarded response to when Georgia was invaded by Russia earlier this year. First, Obama called for restraint from both sides, even though Georgia had done nothing provocative and was on the verge of being invaded. Then he changed his opinion to state that both sides still needed to be restrained, but that Russia was 100% at fault – which was wrong again. Finally, after several days, he decided to copy McCain’s original stance on the matter almost verbatim. This one act alone showed us all just how inexperienced Obama is on matters of war and foreign policy. And when he was finally called out on his original moronic responses to the conflict, Obama could only find solace in some demented realm in which he blamed McCain for Obama’s own moronic original responses. Now, THAT’S leadership you can believe in.

    Exhibit B
    Shortly after the Bhutto assassination, Obama decided to show us just how green he truly is when he said the following via his top foreign policy advisor:

    Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow Al Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of Al Qaeda’s potency… Sen. Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests, whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.
    Is Obama seriously suggesting that, because we’ve spent the past 5 years in Iraq, Pakistan has become destabilized which led to the ultimate murder of Benazir Bhutto? I’m starting to wonder if Obama has ever even taken a class on Middle Eastern history. If he had, surely he would have known that Pakistan has not once been stabilized in its 50 years of existence and Bhutto has been receiving death threats since the 1980s.

    Exhibit C
    Hear Obama’s cowardly plan on defense right from his own mouth:

    Obama’s Plan: Cut military investments in new weapons, slow development of future combat systems, disarm our nukes while other countries build and develop more, and refuse to weaponize space while the Russians and Chinese are doing just the opposite. Basically he wants us to be sitting ducks in the event of an international war. Brilliant, Barack.

    Exhibit D
    Barack has been dangerously wrong on several aspects regarding the war in Iraq. His supporters try to swallow his other multiple foreign policy gaffes by claiming “Well, sure, he may be wrong on most foreign policy issues – but at least he was right about Iraq!”

    Unfortunately, there is minimal validity to that kind of logic.

    First of all, I’m constantly baffled as to how Obama constantly claims that he originally voted against the war in Iraq considering the fact that the United States Senate voted on the war in 2003, and yet he wasn’t a senator until 2006. How could he vote against the war when he didn’t become a U.S. senator until 3 years AFTER the vote took place? And to any who argue that he might have voted against it as a state senator I ask: Since when does the Illinois State Senate control U. S. military action?

    Secondly, those who are pulling the lever for Obama based solely on his stance on “immediate” troop withdrawals should remember his recent comments confirming that he’s willing to “refine his policies” regarding the war in Iraq and that he will keep troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely based on current conditions there. Even the Obama worshiping ABC News claims that Obama’s plan for Iraq is virtually impossible.

    And finally, he was completely wrong about the surge. Here he is claiming that the surge would have no effect:

    We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.
    …and then we have him later trying to convince Americans that the surge will only make things worse:

    But to Obama’s horror, the surge has indeed worked. And as soon as Barry was confronted with the harsh reality that he was dreadfully wrong, he tried to purge his own website of the previous comments he had made longing for the surge’s failure.

    In a time of international war and tension such as this, does anyone find it wise to nominate a man whose comments regarding foreign policy have been proven wrong time and time again?


    Obama foolishly declared that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without preconditions. But when asked if he would sit down and have a town-hall chat with John McCain, Obama shows he is a spineless as they come. McCain originally wanted 10 town-hall style debates in which the crowd can ask unscripted questions to either candidate. Obama refused this offer and agreed to only 3 debates, none of which were allowed to be town-hall style? How can he be tough on terror when he isn’t even brave enough to do a free-style debate with the other presidential candidate?

    This isn’t the only time Barack has dodged an opportunity to run away from having to answer unscripted questions. Just this past weekend Jake Tapper of ABC news tried to get Obama to answer a question regarding the stimulus package. Here’s what Obama had to say:

    ABC News: Senator Obama, what would you tell your Treasury Secretary do differently with the $700 billion?!
    Obama: (laughs)
    ABC News: It's a substantive question!
    Obama: It is! But Jake, we're on a tarmac! That's a pretty good question!
    ABC News: Have a press conference then!
    Obama: I will! On Wednesday!
    The man hasn’t had a press conference in who knows how long, and when asked when he will start answering some tough questions, his only response is that he won’t answer until AFTER Election Day.

    So why does Obama run hide from such events? It’s quite simple really: He is so incredibly radical that he can’t tell the American public his true positions on numerous policies. As a perfect example of this, check out his response to a question on abortion at the Saddleback Church debate:

    His views on abortion are so incredibly radical that he can’t even answer an abortion question in front of a Christian congregation. In fact, let’s dive a little further into his views on abortion…


    When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, a woman by the name of Jill Stanek (a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago), as well as several other nurses, had the nightmarish experience of watching tiny infants who survived abortion be completely discarded without any comfort as they slowly died. The worst part: The nurses were not allowed to intervene in any way. After she found a helpless infant left to die in a soiled linen closet, she knew she had to act. She contacted numerous prosecutors, both in and out of state. Ultimately the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was drafted which extends legal protection and medical care to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion.

    Sounds reasonable, right? Not according to Barack Obama. He was the only legislator in the entire state senate that actively spoke against the bill, and spent his efforts trying to stop it. When confronted on such a despicable position regarding the sanctity of human life, Obama first tried to lie about his original stance on the vote. When that lie was debunked, Obama was then forced to admit that he, in fact, DID try to stop the bill that would save infants from suffering a miserable and terrifying death.

    So just how is a partial birth abortion performed? The baby's feet are held by the abortionist who jams a pair of Metzenbaum scissors into the skull of the baby – that is still alive, mind you. While the head is still in the womb, the abortionist then opens the scissors which cracks open the tender skull and then inserts a suction device to remove the brain material and collapse the brain of the infant, thereby killing it.

    A bunch of horrified nurses tried to stop that from happening, but Obama wanted it to continue. That’s the kind of change Obama believes in.


    What’s Obama’s solution to the energy crisis?

    Tire gauges for everybody! While Obama apologists have emphasized that tire gauges are not necessarily a bad idea, Obama’s ignorance lies in the fact that he thinks inflating our tires would “save just as much” oil as drilling would produce.

    But it gets better. Obama is also on record claiming that he will “bankrupt” any new coal plants - the same power supply that provides half of our nation’s energy. He also vowed earlier this year to make energy prices skyrocket.

    So just how does Obama plan to provide our nation’s energy: Turn off your lights, don’t drive a car, and pray for wind.


    If you ask most Americans what their biggest concern is this election cycle, the answer is virtually unanimous: The economy. So just how has Obama stacked up during our current economic crisis?

    Several weeks ago he tried to solely claim credit for the stimulus, and was harshly rebuked for this false claim by his own favorite news outlet. How did he handle the mortgage crisis? He did nothing more than write a simple letter to the Federal Reserve. How did he handle wasteful spending while federal money starting getting tight? He asked for $750 BILLION in earmarks for special interests – surpassed amongst all the other candidates only by his running mate Joe Biden. Even former president Bill Clinton admits that Obama told him that he didn’t know what to do regarding the economy.

    And now millions of Americans want this man to fix the problem. Amazing, isn’t it.


    To those who argue that Obama has the ability to “reach across the aisle” as some kind of great uniter, allow me to refer you to his voting record, which the National Journal shows was the most liberal in the entire United States Senate. But just how liberal is he? Here’s a short breakdown of my particular favorite positions of the candidate of change:

  • Wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners.
  • Vows amnesty for illegal aliens before his first term is over.
  • Would rather give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens than deport them.
  • He would rather your kids to learn Spanish, than have make English our official language.
  • Thinks that border enforcement = terrorism.
  • Wants to implement the same system of single-payer health care that has failed miserably in other nations across the globe.

  • Wants to impose a fine on parents who don’t pay for health care.

    Finally, my personal favorite…


    It all started with this:

    “Spread the wealth around.” Now where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right, Karl Marx:

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
    Obama’s surrogates in the media tried to cover this up as some sort of misunderstanding, further claiming that his socialist comments about redistributing your success were taken out of context.

    But then another interview surfaced from a 2001 radio interview:
    The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…

    One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
    And if that wasn’t enough to convince you of his views on redistribution of wealth, a third quote from Obama tried to drive the final nail into capitalism’s coffin:

    The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs.
    Imagine there are two kids trick-or-treating. One child walked the streets for hours while the other, who was lazy, went to only 3 houses. Obama wants to take half of the candy from child that worked hard and give it to the lazy child solely for the purposes of being “fair.”

    And to those who disagree with Obama's forced welfare, well according to Barack himself, you’re “selfish.”

    And just how rich do you need to be before Obama starts taking? First he claimed $250 thousand, then $200 thousand, then $150 thousand, then $120 thousand, ans is even on record going as low as $70 thousand. He'll counter by arguing that he plans to give tax cuts to 95% of working Americans - which is impossible considering only 60% of Americans even pay taxes to begin with.

    And what has he promised do with all your money? The real question should be, what HASN'T he promised to do?


    With all the radical positions he holds, how does Barack Obama deal with criticism from those who dare to question him? Answer: He silences them.

    Take, for instance, Joe the Plumber, who did nothing more than ask Obama a fair and simple question regarding his tax plan. How did Barack treat him? He mocked him, as well as his profession.

    Or when anchor Barabara West dared to ask Joe Biden yet another fair question, Team Obama censored them.
  • Or how about the 3 newspapers traveling with the Obama campaign that endorsed McCain? Obama kicked them off just this past weekend to make room for news outlets that have spent more time worshipping him. Is this what we should expect from Obama's presidency? Thuggish intimidation of any who dare question him?

    Regardless of what you may think, Barack Obama doesn't care about you. He once claimed to be his brother's keeper. Well just ask Obama's actual brother what he thinks of that statement. He lives in a run-down hut in Nairobi on $20 a year - comapred to his brother Barack who lives in a mansion, and has offered no financial or temporal assistance to his own flesh and blood. Or if you have a hard time tracking him down, just ask Obama's aunt who lives in the ghetto slums of Boston, who also has received no assistance from her multimillionaire nephew. What makes anybody think that Obama will treat the American public any differently?

    As I already stated, McCain isn't my favorite pick for president either, but an Obama administration would be disastrous for America. He is easily the most radical, inexperienced candidate to ever run for president of this country.

    You can keep the change, Barack.