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?
Answer…

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?


Inexperienced

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!


Education

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?


Spineless

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…


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.


Energy

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.


Economy

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.


Socialism

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…


    Redistributionism

    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?


    Intimidation

    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.

    5 comments:

    Amber Marie said...

    Great job. I think every voter should be forced to read your post. Especially LDS people who are voting for him. The abortion point was right on and I think is indicative of Obama's ethics.

    Anonymous said...

    Propaganda straight from Fox

    Mike said...

    "Propaganda straight from Fox"


    I don't watch Fox, you tool.

    I love how you cowards continuously make vague statements like this, without offering any specific examples or evidence of where I've misled or stretched the truth.

    So I leave to you the pleasure, anonymous, of providing me an example of where I've propagandized or quoted Fox News. Do share...

    Anonymous said...

    Over 50% of your links are fox news clips or stories..

    Propaganda... straight... from.. fox news. Anywho, I don't know you, and I don't have an accout..

    Ohh, and phrases like "Obama launched his political campaign in Ayers’ and Dohrn’s living room" was coined by Fox News.. and also debunked.. infact.. almost every point you made was debunked.

    Mike said...

    "infact [sic].. almost every point you made was debunked" is a feeble argument. So once again, I ask you to be specific and back up what you say with a source. So far, after two anonymous comments, you have yet to accomplish this simple task.

    But since I'm in a good mood tonight, I'll give you a free lesson on how to do it.

    Ahem. Regarding the "Ayers' launched Obama's campaign in his living room" comment that you say was debunked... Read the words from Ayers' own mouth a few days ago admitting this fact - a fact that he has since published in an afterward in his own book:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1278532,bill-ayers-barack-obama-book-111308.article

    Also, when I said to show me where I've quoted Fox news, you should've known that I was referring to opinion or commentary from the station itself.

    But if Fox happens to publish a video clip of Obama himself speaking about his socialist tendencies, does that make my argument no longer valid?.. Becuase it sounds like that's what you are suggesting.