There is a plague of embarrassment weaving its way through the gay community. Earlier in this decade, California voters had voted against 'gay marriage'. The sympathetic courts ruled it unconstitutional. The court ruled that the voters had violated the states constitution. Voters responded by placing a constitutional amendment on this years ballot. This ballot initiative would bar such marriage with a constitutional ban.
I am not commenting on the issue of gay marriage. My concern lies in the behavior of those who felt victimized by the outcome of the election. The response by the agrieved will not win them support. It will only reinforce every negative opinion of their opponents. They will not move to the 'front of the bus' by kicking out the windows. They will move to the front when they present themselves as normal contributors of society. Gay communities must break out of their gay ghettos and stop trying to fulfill every negative stereotype. Involving themselves in the 'straight world' where people can get to know them in a nonthreatening manner will open the doors. Then acceptance will follow.
In the lead up to the election, the left outspent amendment supporters by a 6-1 margin. The amendments opponents on the left believed that they could buy the favor of voters. They ignored the heartfelt beliefs of gay marriage opponents.
Gay activists continued to try to shove an agenda down the throats of detractors. Just before the election, the activists treated first graders at one California school to a field trip. The field trip was to the gay marriage of their lesbian teacher. A week later, these activists held a surprise national 'Gay Coming Out Day', for children in grades K-8. It was held under the guise of teaching the children to be tolerant and build alliances.
If these activists believed what they were doing was "right", they would have afforded parents the opportunity to decide if it was age appropriate for their children. In the case of the lesbian wedding, they did notify parents. In the case of 'Gay Coming Out Day' they did not let parents know until it was over.
These activists believe they know what is "right" for all children and selfishly usurp parental authority. Most of these activists will never have children and do not identify with the responsibility that goes into parenting. These people are not interested in building "alliances", they are bent on indoctrination. Not indoctrination into the gay lifestyle, but into acceptance of the lifestyle.
California voters voted to ban gay marriage. The Black community voted more than 90%for Obama. They voted to ban gay marriage by 70%. Hispanic and whites also voted for the ban.
Since this defeat, these activists have been on a rampage across the US. They have targeted anyone they think may have voted in favor of this amendment. The activists accuse amendment supporters of bigotry and hatred.
Hate has abounded, not from the corners of Jewish synagogues, Christian churches or Muslim mosques. Those are just the places we've been told "hate" resides.
The "hate" was also not found in any single ethnicity, political party, or geographical demographic.
No the side that has been doing all of the hating since election day in the troubled parts of our nation have been militant activists radicals, who happen to be mostly white, mostly godless.
It is the radical activists roaming the streets, pushing elderly women to the ground, staging obnoxious protests outside places of worship, and in some cases interfering in the midst of worship services that have expressed all of the hatred seen since election day. They have even taken to harassing people on their way to or from the church door and their car.
But these haters are ignorant and as such, many Christians, Muslims, and Jews have shown compassion upon them.
The activists keep marching, screaming and forcing spittle to fly in little old ladies faces, for what end? To change the definition of a word. Prop 8 didn't say that those who are protesting like wild coyotes can't create a contract in which every arrangement in life that they would like can be legally protected and allowed for.
In California, the civil union law is one of the most liberal in the nation. But even if it were not the drawing up of a legally binding document insuring rights is now, and has been available since before the term "gay marriage" was even considered.
The true reason that the radical activists wish Constitutional authority to be undone, is very simple. Those who have been displaying rage and hate at the houses of worship, publishing the names of people on blacklists on the internet and encouraging violence, harassment, and worse against Prop 8 supporters--ironically--is due to their desire to see "hate crimes legislation" not only be passed, but amended to include those they would label "religious bigots."
The activists here are merely mirroring the history in the Scandinavian nations, and Canada in wanting to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
The activists have displayed bigotry in their protests as well. Choosing not to protest churches in--shall we say "economically challenged" neighborhoods like--Compton, they instead of made primarily white voters the victim of their hate-filled tirades. And while it was 1.6 million Barack Obama voters--many black and latino--that really served to make the win the decisive victory for marriage that it turned out to be, they have shied away from the churches attended by these same groups.
The Prop 8 opponents lost for simple reasons, they do not recognize Constitutional authority, they do not respect the disagreement of their opponent, they are dishonest with the facts, and they are far less tolerant than what the majority have ever endured from the most homophobic person they've ever met in person.
just this past week a 69-year-old woman carried a Styrofoam cross in support of traditional marriage into a pro-gay marriage march in Palm Springs and within seconds had the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on, and then the homosexuals began to shove her around and curse her out.
we move to Lansing, Michigan and last Sunday’s protest inside the Mount Hope Church by the rabid gay group Bash Back. These winners entered the church along with worshippers and surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers and condoms at the congregants, pulled the fire alarm, made out in front of the church by the pulpit and shouted slogans such as “Jesus was a homo.” No arrests were made.
Then we come to one Charles Bouley, radical gay activist and talk show host on San Francisco’s (where else) station KGO who on November 1st angrily said on the air that Joe the Plumber was a “G** D*** M-F’er” that he wanted dead!
These radicals want the public to believe they speak for all gays. They do not.
The radical gay activists do not understand why they can not force acceptance. They are a small minority within a small minority. These activists hate God, they hate those who believe in God, and ultimately their argument is with Him and against Him.
Most gays do not condone this thuggish behavior. For many it is an embarrassment. "Mainstream" gays loath the idea of being lumped in with these radical gay activists. The mainstream gays want to continue to live their lives uninterrupted.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Valerie Jarrett Named Senior White House Adviser
It figures Obama would name some of his sleazy Chicago cronies to his administration. We are going to be held hostage to these crooks for the next four years. Their brand of thuggery will continue to be embraced by the democrats.
With the naming of Jarrett,the role of "Cruella deVille" has been filled. In Jarrett we can easily look at the vast array of information available on her.
Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama's former boss.) Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.
(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions...lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")
As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage...In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." Ms. Jarrett refused to comment to the Globe on the conditions of the complex.
"Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago." - http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals
I am surprised with Jarrett's questionable background that Obama and his poor judgement did not name her to head HUD. Jarrett and Obama really admire each other. Here is a video of her appearance on ''Meet The Press' declaring that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. I feel so reassured. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/valerie-jarrett-obama-spokesperson-says-obama-ready-to-rule-on-day-1/
With the naming of Jarrett,the role of "Cruella deVille" has been filled. In Jarrett we can easily look at the vast array of information available on her.
Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis. (Davis is also Obama's former boss.) Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis.
(According to press reports, housing projects operated by Davis and Rezko have been substandard and beset with code violations. The Chicago Sun Times reported that one Rezko-managed housing project was "riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions...lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.")
As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza. According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage...In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -- a score so bad the buildings now face demolition." Ms. Jarrett refused to comment to the Globe on the conditions of the complex.
"Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago." - http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/nov/obama-advisor-valerie-jarrett-linked-real-estate-scandals
I am surprised with Jarrett's questionable background that Obama and his poor judgement did not name her to head HUD. Jarrett and Obama really admire each other. Here is a video of her appearance on ''Meet The Press' declaring that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one. I feel so reassured. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/valerie-jarrett-obama-spokesperson-says-obama-ready-to-rule-on-day-1/
Monday, November 10, 2008
Globalization Leading To One World Government
In an earlier article, Obama's 'Global Poverty Act' was discussed. Concern was expressed at the prospect of ceding American sovereignty to the United Nations. The specter of the world approaching a new global alignment is welcome by some and derided by others.
Many believe the process started in the 80's with what President Bush Sr, called a new world order. For the most part it can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations itself. It accelerated under the UN's Millennium Project. Senator Obama laid a major building block with his 'Global Poverty Act'. The purpose of this legislation was to support the Millennium Project.
Obama is set to be a major player on the world stage as a globalization promoter. He is set to 'rule' from day one with use of executive orders. He was not just elected on November 4th. He was anointed long ago.
Obama is calling for a 'draft' for national service. His website previously called service a 'requirement'. Upon protest from bloggers, the language was softened. Still expected but reworded. As part of his stealth effort for ambiguous change, his website has removed his agenda.
The Millennium Project was hailed around the world for it's lofty goals by globalist. Here in the states it was barley mentioned in our media. The UN. is not as popular here as it is elsewhere, and the media was providing cover to the globalists stealth agenda. The media throughout this recent election played down any mention of values. They knew it was not Obama's strong suit.
Instead they focused their energy on creating the perception that Obama's election was inevitable. They sought to destroy anyone speaking out against him. Subtly supported his campaign's misdeeds of illegal fundraising, and illegal voter registration drives.
A person can not hold Obama's world view and defend American sovereignty. He has little intention of doing so. His administration will implement policies that are choreographed with other nations to promote globalization. The ultimate goal will be the culmination of one world government.
We heard this most recently from avowed globalist British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."
Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.
These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on governments around the world to coordinate tax and spending policies to shore up a slowing world economy.
Next year, Britain's economy may shrink 1.3 percent, the most in the Group of Seven nations, according to the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based lender expects a contraction of 0.7 percent in the U.S., 0.5 percent in the nations sharing the euro and 0.2 percent in Japan.
There are already signs that other countries are ready to heed Brown's call. China, the world's fourth-largest economy, announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan yesterday, saying the funds will be used by the end of 2010 as part of a ``proactive fiscal policy.''
A similar message came yesterday from Sao Paulo, where finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations met over the weekend to lay the groundwork for the heads-of-state summit in Washington. Ministers agreed to act ``urgently'' to bolster growth as the world's leading industrialized economies battle recession, according to the G-20 statement.
Efforts Overseas
Japanese lawmakers approved a 1.8 trillion-yen supplementary budget as part of a stimulus package on Oct. 16, and Prime Minister Taro Aso on Oct. 30 promised to pump an additional 5 trillion yen into the economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 5 announced a 50 billion-euro ($65 billion) stimulus package to spur economic growth.
In the U.S., Democrat lawmakers are considering passing two stimulus measures, one during a so-called lame duck session this month and another after President-elect Barack Obama and the larger Democratic majority in Congress take office in January.
``Further fiscal stimulus designed to bridge the gap until monetary policy becomes fully effective can be expected'' around the world, said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America Corp. in London.
In Britain, Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling will set out tax and spending plans this month or next. Brown has said he's ready to increase borrowing to ward off recession and that he will bring forward some spending.
"We must use the power of multilateralism to establish a global consensus on a new, decisive and systemic approach to strengthening the global economy,"
Opposition to these goals will be silenced and not tolerated. Censorship is on the rise around the world. Everywhere censorship is slowly being introduced in an effort to keep it unnoticed. This is similar to cooking a frog. Put him in the pot and raise the temperature slowly. He will be 'content' and does not notice the increasing temperature. If you drop the frog into an already boiling pot, he will jump out.
In Britain, security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
Australia is poised to join N. Korea, Iran, and China in its' imposition of censoring the internet. We have seen other forms recently right here in the US. Through the media, commentary or questions that dared to challenge Obama were downplayed or ignored. Ask 'Joe the plumber'. Efforts were made to destroy that man.
John McCain dared to name a lady to the Republican ticket who was not in favor of abortion as a means of convenience. Sarah Palin was maligned by the press and left wing bloggers with some of the most scurrilous accusations. Not only was she anti-abortion, but she dared raise the issue of Obama's program and past associations. Palin was sliced and diced for her positions, while Obama was given a pass by the globalist'.
The efforts to point out the Obama shortcomings are met with demonization. This is to stop anything from impeding globalization and the ensuing one world government. The global playing field will be made equal and everyone will be goose stepping to the same song. We can see this slow process unfolding before our eyes. Even when the globalist' in our midst implore that we do not believe our lying eyes. It is there.
Many believe the process started in the 80's with what President Bush Sr, called a new world order. For the most part it can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations itself. It accelerated under the UN's Millennium Project. Senator Obama laid a major building block with his 'Global Poverty Act'. The purpose of this legislation was to support the Millennium Project.
Obama is set to be a major player on the world stage as a globalization promoter. He is set to 'rule' from day one with use of executive orders. He was not just elected on November 4th. He was anointed long ago.
Obama is calling for a 'draft' for national service. His website previously called service a 'requirement'. Upon protest from bloggers, the language was softened. Still expected but reworded. As part of his stealth effort for ambiguous change, his website has removed his agenda.
The Millennium Project was hailed around the world for it's lofty goals by globalist. Here in the states it was barley mentioned in our media. The UN. is not as popular here as it is elsewhere, and the media was providing cover to the globalists stealth agenda. The media throughout this recent election played down any mention of values. They knew it was not Obama's strong suit.
Instead they focused their energy on creating the perception that Obama's election was inevitable. They sought to destroy anyone speaking out against him. Subtly supported his campaign's misdeeds of illegal fundraising, and illegal voter registration drives.
A person can not hold Obama's world view and defend American sovereignty. He has little intention of doing so. His administration will implement policies that are choreographed with other nations to promote globalization. The ultimate goal will be the culmination of one world government.
We heard this most recently from avowed globalist British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
"...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action, we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society."
Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.
These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalizing banks so they can resume lending to families and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
He also wants immediate action to stop the spread of the financial crisis to middle-income countries, with a new facility for the International Monetary Fund, and agreement on a global trade deal, as well as reform of the global financial system.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on governments around the world to coordinate tax and spending policies to shore up a slowing world economy.
Next year, Britain's economy may shrink 1.3 percent, the most in the Group of Seven nations, according to the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based lender expects a contraction of 0.7 percent in the U.S., 0.5 percent in the nations sharing the euro and 0.2 percent in Japan.
There are already signs that other countries are ready to heed Brown's call. China, the world's fourth-largest economy, announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus plan yesterday, saying the funds will be used by the end of 2010 as part of a ``proactive fiscal policy.''
A similar message came yesterday from Sao Paulo, where finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations met over the weekend to lay the groundwork for the heads-of-state summit in Washington. Ministers agreed to act ``urgently'' to bolster growth as the world's leading industrialized economies battle recession, according to the G-20 statement.
Efforts Overseas
Japanese lawmakers approved a 1.8 trillion-yen supplementary budget as part of a stimulus package on Oct. 16, and Prime Minister Taro Aso on Oct. 30 promised to pump an additional 5 trillion yen into the economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Nov. 5 announced a 50 billion-euro ($65 billion) stimulus package to spur economic growth.
In the U.S., Democrat lawmakers are considering passing two stimulus measures, one during a so-called lame duck session this month and another after President-elect Barack Obama and the larger Democratic majority in Congress take office in January.
``Further fiscal stimulus designed to bridge the gap until monetary policy becomes fully effective can be expected'' around the world, said Holger Schmieding, chief European economist at Bank of America Corp. in London.
In Britain, Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling will set out tax and spending plans this month or next. Brown has said he's ready to increase borrowing to ward off recession and that he will bring forward some spending.
"We must use the power of multilateralism to establish a global consensus on a new, decisive and systemic approach to strengthening the global economy,"
Opposition to these goals will be silenced and not tolerated. Censorship is on the rise around the world. Everywhere censorship is slowly being introduced in an effort to keep it unnoticed. This is similar to cooking a frog. Put him in the pot and raise the temperature slowly. He will be 'content' and does not notice the increasing temperature. If you drop the frog into an already boiling pot, he will jump out.
In Britain, security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.
The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.
The ISC holds huge clout within Whitehall. It receives secret briefings from MI5, MI6and GCHQ and is highly influential in forming government policy. Kim Howells, a respected former Foreign Office minister, was recently appointed its chairman. Under the existing voluntary code of conduct, known as the DA-Notice system, the Government can request that the media does not report a story. However, the committee's members are particularly worried about leaks, which, they believe, could derail investigations and the reporting of which needs to be banned by legislation.
Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.
Australia is poised to join N. Korea, Iran, and China in its' imposition of censoring the internet. We have seen other forms recently right here in the US. Through the media, commentary or questions that dared to challenge Obama were downplayed or ignored. Ask 'Joe the plumber'. Efforts were made to destroy that man.
John McCain dared to name a lady to the Republican ticket who was not in favor of abortion as a means of convenience. Sarah Palin was maligned by the press and left wing bloggers with some of the most scurrilous accusations. Not only was she anti-abortion, but she dared raise the issue of Obama's program and past associations. Palin was sliced and diced for her positions, while Obama was given a pass by the globalist'.
The efforts to point out the Obama shortcomings are met with demonization. This is to stop anything from impeding globalization and the ensuing one world government. The global playing field will be made equal and everyone will be goose stepping to the same song. We can see this slow process unfolding before our eyes. Even when the globalist' in our midst implore that we do not believe our lying eyes. It is there.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
'Civilian Security Force' Participation To Be Required
While voters blindly threw 52% of their support behind Obama; plans went largely unnoticed for the creation of a civilian security force reminescent of the Hitler Youth Corp. Service will be compulsory from middle school through college.
Ideas abound of neighbor spying on neighbor, and child on parent. Voters enamored with the Obama cult of personality, gravitated to his rhetoric of 'hope and change'. Most people lazilly received their voter information by an overtly biased press in filtered, 30 second sound bites. Very few took the time to research either candidate on their own.
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served 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," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
Ideas abound of neighbor spying on neighbor, and child on parent. Voters enamored with the Obama cult of personality, gravitated to his rhetoric of 'hope and change'. Most people lazilly received their voter information by an overtly biased press in filtered, 30 second sound bites. Very few took the time to research either candidate on their own.
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served 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," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called the Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
Monday, October 13, 2008
America Under Obama Styled Socialism
I found a decent explanation of Socialism and how Obama's brand of Socialism could change the face of America forever. The U.S. already has minor touches oF Socialism, (public transportation, social security, medicare, schools, etc) but an Obama victory will push us into an uglier realm that many Americans do not realize. We learned recently that Obama once belonged to an Socialist Party. Obama realized that in order to succeed in American politics he would have to leave the Socialist Party and join the Democrats, if he was to have a chance to really push his agenda, ideals and himself.
For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.
Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.
The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.
Socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.
If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.
And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.
It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.
Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.
One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.
Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.
The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)
Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.
Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.
For conservatives opposed to an Obama presidency, the last few days have brought the wonder of the smoking gun: Obama really was a socialist. Combine that hidden paper trail with his Ayers affiliation, and it's reasonable to believe that Obama still holds these socialist political views.
Conservatives' excitement at finally having found the real socialist hiding inside that empty suit is tempered by one thing -- outside of conservative circles, nobody really seems to care. The media, of course, is very aggressive about not caring, but the malaise seems to affect ordinary Americans as well.
The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. To them, it's just another content-neutral political ideology. In our non-judgmental age, it falls into the same category as Liberal vs. Conservative, or Left vs. Right. To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.
Socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.
If it were up to me to attach labels to modern political ideologies, I would choose the terms "Individualism" and "Statism." "Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which sought to repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with as little power as possible in the State, especially the federal state. The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchal and parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, whenever power is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.
And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for that ideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached to Sen. Obama: Socialism.
It took Marx and Engels to carry socialism to the next level, in which they envisioned the complete overthrow of all governments, with the workers of the world uniting so that all contributed to a single socialist government, which in turn would give back to them on an as needed basis. Assuming that you're not big on individualism and exceptionalism, this might be an attractive doctrine as a way to destroy want and exploitation, except for one thing: It does not take into account the fact that the state has no conscience.
Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas.
One sees the same pattern as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia: individuals were instantly subordinated to the needs of the state and, as the state's needs became ever more grandiose, more and more people had to die. Current estimates are that Mao's "visionary" Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of up to 100 million people. The people died from starvation, or were tortured to death, or just outright murdered because of thought crimes. The same pattern, of course, daily plays out on a smaller scale in socialist North Korea.
Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead left behind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China (and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least in London), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocent people skyrocketed.
The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at a level currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciate a state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain, government protects thieves right's against property owner's, has it's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green" crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their own children in public places; destroys perfectly good food that does not meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; and increasingly stifles free speech. (Impressively, all of the preceding examples are from just the last six months in England.)
Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.
Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Obama Sponsored 'Global Poverty Act'
The United States Senate may vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens.
It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000-- on welfare to third-world countries.
Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.
Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night -- or in broad daylight for that matter.
Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. The Senate Shell Game...Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President -- in conjunction with the Secretary of State -- to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.
In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?
And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?
The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration..."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
As for specific figures... WorldNetDaily.com reports: "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."
"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"
"The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money." And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!
It Gets Worse! Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"
How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." and "political control of the global economy."
In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution." We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW! Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate.
Other Appropriate Entities...Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs -- a Columbia University economist -- is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations. In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan -- based on the research of 265 "poverty specialists" -- Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty. He argued that we should spend at least an additional $30 billion a year. And Sachs has decreed that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is to IMPOSE A GLOBAL TAX. Has Senator Obama
-- along with the other Senate co-sponsors -- introduced the Global Policy Act at least in partial obedience to Sachs' wishes?
Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.com said of this treacherous bill:"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act, that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."
And yes, just in case you think the massive amounts of your tax dollars that were wasted under the United Nation's Oil for Food program were an aberration, and that such a thing could not eventually happen on a more massive scale were the Global Poverty Act to sneak through the Senate, Doug Powers, writing for WorldNetDaily.com made this observation: "Not long ago, Nigeria's 'anti-corruption commission' -- runner-up in the 'oxymoron of the year' competition, second only to 'U.S. Senate Intelligence' -- found that past rulers of Nigeria have stolen or misused billions of dollars."
"The commission discovered that the amount of money 'missing' adds up to all the Western aid given to Africa in four decades. Obama, Hagel and Cantwell want to throw more at them. Apparently they won't be happy until there are trillions of our tax dollars stolen by crooke leaders and warlords."
It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
According to some conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000-- on welfare to third-world countries.
Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.
Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night -- or in broad daylight for that matter.
Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. The Senate Shell Game...Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President -- in conjunction with the Secretary of State -- to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.
In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..."Technically he's correct... after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies...But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question: Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that strategy?
And what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty?
The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration..."
"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
As for specific figures... WorldNetDaily.com reports: "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."
"[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'"
"The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."
And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money." And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!
It Gets Worse! Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency; a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources"; a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection -- oil, natural gas, coal"; "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels." a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will; a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"
How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first? cancellation of "the debts of developing countries," "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." and "political control of the global economy."
In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution." We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW! Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate.
Other Appropriate Entities...Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs -- a Columbia University economist -- is monitoring the Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations. In his 2005 report to Kofi Annan -- based on the research of 265 "poverty specialists" -- Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3 billion a year to alleviate global poverty. He argued that we should spend at least an additional $30 billion a year. And Sachs has decreed that the only way to force the United States to commit that much money is to IMPOSE A GLOBAL TAX. Has Senator Obama
-- along with the other Senate co-sponsors -- introduced the Global Policy Act at least in partial obedience to Sachs' wishes?
Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily.com said of this treacherous bill:"Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act, that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international -- directed not by Americans but by the United Nations."
And yes, just in case you think the massive amounts of your tax dollars that were wasted under the United Nation's Oil for Food program were an aberration, and that such a thing could not eventually happen on a more massive scale were the Global Poverty Act to sneak through the Senate, Doug Powers, writing for WorldNetDaily.com made this observation: "Not long ago, Nigeria's 'anti-corruption commission' -- runner-up in the 'oxymoron of the year' competition, second only to 'U.S. Senate Intelligence' -- found that past rulers of Nigeria have stolen or misused billions of dollars."
"The commission discovered that the amount of money 'missing' adds up to all the Western aid given to Africa in four decades. Obama, Hagel and Cantwell want to throw more at them. Apparently they won't be happy until there are trillions of our tax dollars stolen by crooke leaders and warlords."
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Left Wing: Whales Trump National Security
I am in favor of conserving the environment and protecting the Whales. Most Americans recognize the need to do so. However, there needs to be proportionality in our approach. Our friends on the left have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the Democrats. They do so, because the Democrats grant them more influence, even at the peril of old fashioned ‘common sense’. When I see the environmentalist putting their cause ahead of my family’s safety, I object. This article that I have provided excerpts from, highlights this short sided fallacy. A link is provided at the bottom.
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
It’s a dangerous world out there. Iranian mullahs push forward their missile and nuke development programs while musing about a world without Israel ... or America. Russia rattles its saber, invades Georgia, plants its flag in the Arctic and dismisses the United States as a has-been superpower. Islamists wage a “holy war” against “the Great Satan” with firefights in Afghanistan, bombings in the Middle East and plots around the world.
Perilous times, indeed. And while America is at war, environmental extremists are on a mission, too. Just not necessarily on our side.
Case in point: The Navy has a whale of a problem. It uses sonar to detect underwater dangers and to navigate its own submarines. But sonar may adversely affect the navigational ability of whales and other sea creatures. In five different cases, environmental groups have sued the Navy to restrict testing low- and medium-range sonar frequency arrays.
For example, when naval ships detect sea mammals within 200 yards during training exercises, they shut down the sonar immediately. Scientific experiments by the Navy determined that a 200-yard buffer minimizes the risk that whales will become disoriented by military sonar.
But instead of deferring to the service’s scientifically-based buffer zone, a U.S. District judge decided the Navy must turned off its sonar at a range of 2,200 yards. The new buffer zone - more than a mile-and-a-quarter radius - appears based on nothing but the whim of the court. The Navy called the restrictions “crippling.”
As a result of this decision, the commander of the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group recently had to slash sonar training. Meanwhile, China continues to build its super-quiet diesel submarines that are harder and harder to find - even with sonar up and running.
The Navy is not the only service losing “lawfare” battles to the enviros. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled the Pentagon violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to evaluate how a new air base, the Futenma Replacement Facility, might affect the Japanese dugong.
Since NHPA is intended to apply to historical property, not animals, the court’s decision is as strange as the unusual mammal it purports to protect.
More than odd, the ruling undermines security. A joint statement by U.S. and Japanese officials “reaffirmed that completion of the Futenma Replacement Facility ... by the target date of 2014, is the key to ... the overall realignment plan for Okinawa,” including relocation of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to Guam. The actions of an activist judge have now all but ensured this vital process will not be complete by the deadline.
Worse, the dugong decision may create a new opening for environmental activists to target other U.S. bases around the world, re-labeling arcane animals as historic relics that must take precedence under the NHPA.
Judges gone wild is a symptom of a bigger problem. In the end, the greatest threat to American security may be constituent politics that puts narrow self-interest above the common good.
“Lawfare” advocates a constituent concern regardless of the cost. As long as stakeholders advance their agenda, nothing else matters. This problem can get out of control when judges cultivate a culture of litigation and creative interpretation of law.
The activists can rightly argue they are just doing their job, lobbying for their thing. Government, however, is supposed to be about more than just the sum of constituent politics.
Lawmakers have an obligation to give us laws that will keep us all free, safe and prosperous. Courts are obliged to protect us from those who would violate or abuse the law.
But when activists hijack the judiciary and advance one goal at the expense of another, justice is perverted. And when government’s fundamental obligation to “provide for the common defense” falls victim to perverse court rulings, the nation’s future is at risk.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed100608d.cfm
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
I Am Voting For John McCain
I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
The US. faces some trying times ahead. We need a team with integrity, judgement, character, and experience. McCain has proven himself over the years to embody all the above. Obama is lacking in all the above.
On Energy, McCain recognizes our national security depends on energy independence. He has proposed an energy plan akin to the one put forth by T. Boone Pickens. It involves Clean Coal technology, Nuclear Power (which is much safer today than in previous years), Wind, Solar, Hydro, Natural Gas, and increased Domestic drilling. Our national security is tied to our self sufficiency.
On the Economy, McCain has proposed a corporate tax cut, just as Obama said. Think about it for a moment. Obama wants to increase the corporate tax rate. Folks, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Companies are in business to make a profit, and their stockholders demand it, investing accordingly. If we increase the corporate tax rate, we will only drive more of these companies to overseas locations where the tax rates & labor costs are lower. This will cost us the loss of more jobs. Lower tax rates will help keep those companies and jobs in the US. The bailout bill has addressed corporate greed and executive compensation. So that should be more fair. Americans can not be so naive as to believe that companies that stay in the US. will just eat the tax increase. Obamas corporate tax rate increase will hit the American consumer, just as if it was a direct income tax increase. The companies remaining in the US. are going to pass the increase onto all of us. This will hit us in the form of higher prices, and increased inflation. You think that a gallon of milk is expensive now? Just wait. This is a poorly thought out plan, and goes directly to Obama’s judgement.
National Security, Veterans & Military, Listening to the debates has exposed Obama’s naivety. He speaks well, but has nothing beyond a handful of memorized lines. His idea of holding ‘Presidential Level’ talks with Iran, is dangerous. It is no secret Iran wants a Nuclear arsenal. They have the missles to carry them to Israel. They have said they want to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Eventually Iran will have missles that can reach Europe, and then finally the US. Radical Muslims have all said they want to kill all westerners. Obama claimed that Henry Kissinger agreed with him on Presidential Level talks with Iran.
Kissinger came right out and said Obama had mischaracterized Kissinger's statement. Kissinger had said direct talks would be fine at the Secretary level, not at the Presidential level. The reason we do not want to talk at the Presidential level without preconditions, is to do so, will lend the Iranian leader equal gravitas. This would allow Ahmadinejad to show up, make a statement, and walk out claiming he had stood up to the ‘Great Satan’. It would undermine our American leadership. McCain would not hold direct talks, to do otherwise is poor judgement, arising from a lack of experience.
McCain, at the beginning of the Iraq War, disagreed with the strategy Bush chose to follow. McCain wanted to go in with a stronger, more prepared force. He finally got his way 3 1/2 years later in the form of the ‘Surge’. Had we followed his advice in the beginning, we could have saved many lives, and money.
Obama says he would fight Pakistan unilaterally if he thought we could get members of Al Qaeda. McCain correctly pointed out that it is not wise to “announce” this in advance, as we need cooperation from the Pakistanis’. Both men agree we will have to send more troops into Afghanistan. I trust McCain’s judgement and experience to lead this endeavor. Americas security depends on its success. McCain worked to increase pay scales for servicemen and women during both the Persian Gulf War and the current War on Terror and to increase enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for reservists and guardsmen. He also sponsored bills to give special tax relief to deployed service members and to set up overseas savings programs for the men and women fighting in the Gulf War.
McCain has supported legislation to expand retirement benefits for reservists, supported provisions to expand eligibility for health care benefits for reservists and their families, and sponsored legislation to grant survivor benefit payments to the spouses of reservists who die during or as the result of training. He is committed to ensuring that veterans’ health care programs receive the funding necessary to provide the quality health care our veterans need and deserve. He has worked to ensure that the Veteran’s Affairs provides care for all eligible veterans, no matter where they live or what they need. In addition, John McCain has fought to ensure that retired servicemen and women have meaningful access to affordable health care.
McCain strongly believes that it is our duty as a nation to provide our veterans, who dedicated their careers, risked their personal safety, and sometimes sacrificed their lives in order to protect us, with the benefits that we have promised them and that they have earned. John McCain has voted consistently to increase funding for veterans’ benefits, recognizing that the people who serve our country should get priority over the disgraceful amounts of spending on corporate subsidies and wasteful pork barrel spending. He also pushed for various initiatives to ensure that veterans who are eligible for benefits know what they are entitled to and have the resources to obtain their benefits.
I am old fashioned and do believe character counts. I believe McCain is the man with better character. Obama made a conscious decision to surround himself with Slumlord felon Tony Rezko, and Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers, and racist Rev. Wright. Obama sat in that church 20 yrs! Google; ‘Black Liberation Theology’.
As a State Senator, Obama directed tax dollars to Tony Rezko's company to maintain low income housing in Chicago. Rezko took the money, but did not fulfill his obligation. The Federal Government had to step in, and seize the properties. Many of the buildings were in such disrepair that they had to be razed. Rezko upon receiving the tax money, suddenly was able to donate over $150,000 to Obama's campaign coffers. To me it looks like Rezko simply took his cut, and "donated" Obamas cut to his campaign.
Obama held his first campaign meeting when starting out in the living room of Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers. How could Obama not know of Ayers radical past. They were both on the board of the Woods Fund, and The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In addition to this they were neighbors. Obama directed funding to Ayers. Ayers wanted the funding to push his radical education initiatives. The education initiative failed, and over $100 million dollars were gone.
As for Reverend Wright. Here is a man who holds the white population in disdain. How could Obama sit in a church that many years and not hear the sermon. What if he wins and does not hear that emergency 3am. call? This church has an education unit within the church that follows Black Liberation Theology. Again, I ask that everyone take a moment and google that. Obama is not a "post-racial" candidate, but embodies some deep seeded suspicions of whites. I come to this conclusion from Obamas own words:
” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”
“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
"never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Obama has defended these remarks. He said they were taken out of context. The people at "factcheck.org", stepped in on his behalf. Basically factcheck.org implored readers, "Don't believe your lying eyes."
After Law School, he worked as an executive trainer for an organization that has been in the news lately. He trained on 'tactics'. It's name is ACORN. ACORN is being investigated throughout several states for voter registration fraud. The ACORN volunteers have been indicted and convicted in several cases. It is a naked attempt to steal this election. The real kicker is that the Democrats tried to put funding for ACORN into the financial bailout package that was just passed and signed into law. The House Republicans voted down the first package, and the wording was removed.
No one can say these things about McCain. His biggest "scandal" was the Keating 5 back in the '80's. The Democrats lead investigator, Robert Bennett, recommended that John McCain and John Glenn should have been exonerated. According to Bennett, the Democrats did not want to exonerate McCain, as it would leave only Democratic Senators in trouble.
Sarah Palin, is a lady I can relate to. She connects with Middle America. She is one of us. She knows what it is to shop in WalMart, to have her family's health care cut off, and the need to adhere to a tight family budget. She does not merely 'talk the talk', she 'walks the walk'.
She does not interview well, as we have all watched. She is not a Washington insider that has spent a lifetime doing daily interviews. We have seen her do great at speaking and debating.
As a Mayor and Governor she has taken on "the good old boys network", and won. She had the chutzpah to take on the incumbant Republican Governor and knocked him off in the Alaska GOP primary. Palin has built a reputation for reforming the Wasilla and Alaska government. She ended personal property taxes, and took on big oil.
McCain and Palin are the Mavericks in this election that will bring the governmental change needed at this time.
I must confess. McCain was not my first choice. However, we have only two choices. With the research I have done, I have concluded that McCain is the best choice.
The US. faces some trying times ahead. We need a team with integrity, judgement, character, and experience. McCain has proven himself over the years to embody all the above. Obama is lacking in all the above.
On Energy, McCain recognizes our national security depends on energy independence. He has proposed an energy plan akin to the one put forth by T. Boone Pickens. It involves Clean Coal technology, Nuclear Power (which is much safer today than in previous years), Wind, Solar, Hydro, Natural Gas, and increased Domestic drilling. Our national security is tied to our self sufficiency.
On the Economy, McCain has proposed a corporate tax cut, just as Obama said. Think about it for a moment. Obama wants to increase the corporate tax rate. Folks, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Companies are in business to make a profit, and their stockholders demand it, investing accordingly. If we increase the corporate tax rate, we will only drive more of these companies to overseas locations where the tax rates & labor costs are lower. This will cost us the loss of more jobs. Lower tax rates will help keep those companies and jobs in the US. The bailout bill has addressed corporate greed and executive compensation. So that should be more fair. Americans can not be so naive as to believe that companies that stay in the US. will just eat the tax increase. Obamas corporate tax rate increase will hit the American consumer, just as if it was a direct income tax increase. The companies remaining in the US. are going to pass the increase onto all of us. This will hit us in the form of higher prices, and increased inflation. You think that a gallon of milk is expensive now? Just wait. This is a poorly thought out plan, and goes directly to Obama’s judgement.
National Security, Veterans & Military, Listening to the debates has exposed Obama’s naivety. He speaks well, but has nothing beyond a handful of memorized lines. His idea of holding ‘Presidential Level’ talks with Iran, is dangerous. It is no secret Iran wants a Nuclear arsenal. They have the missles to carry them to Israel. They have said they want to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Eventually Iran will have missles that can reach Europe, and then finally the US. Radical Muslims have all said they want to kill all westerners. Obama claimed that Henry Kissinger agreed with him on Presidential Level talks with Iran.
Kissinger came right out and said Obama had mischaracterized Kissinger's statement. Kissinger had said direct talks would be fine at the Secretary level, not at the Presidential level. The reason we do not want to talk at the Presidential level without preconditions, is to do so, will lend the Iranian leader equal gravitas. This would allow Ahmadinejad to show up, make a statement, and walk out claiming he had stood up to the ‘Great Satan’. It would undermine our American leadership. McCain would not hold direct talks, to do otherwise is poor judgement, arising from a lack of experience.
McCain, at the beginning of the Iraq War, disagreed with the strategy Bush chose to follow. McCain wanted to go in with a stronger, more prepared force. He finally got his way 3 1/2 years later in the form of the ‘Surge’. Had we followed his advice in the beginning, we could have saved many lives, and money.
Obama says he would fight Pakistan unilaterally if he thought we could get members of Al Qaeda. McCain correctly pointed out that it is not wise to “announce” this in advance, as we need cooperation from the Pakistanis’. Both men agree we will have to send more troops into Afghanistan. I trust McCain’s judgement and experience to lead this endeavor. Americas security depends on its success. McCain worked to increase pay scales for servicemen and women during both the Persian Gulf War and the current War on Terror and to increase enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for reservists and guardsmen. He also sponsored bills to give special tax relief to deployed service members and to set up overseas savings programs for the men and women fighting in the Gulf War.
McCain has supported legislation to expand retirement benefits for reservists, supported provisions to expand eligibility for health care benefits for reservists and their families, and sponsored legislation to grant survivor benefit payments to the spouses of reservists who die during or as the result of training. He is committed to ensuring that veterans’ health care programs receive the funding necessary to provide the quality health care our veterans need and deserve. He has worked to ensure that the Veteran’s Affairs provides care for all eligible veterans, no matter where they live or what they need. In addition, John McCain has fought to ensure that retired servicemen and women have meaningful access to affordable health care.
McCain strongly believes that it is our duty as a nation to provide our veterans, who dedicated their careers, risked their personal safety, and sometimes sacrificed their lives in order to protect us, with the benefits that we have promised them and that they have earned. John McCain has voted consistently to increase funding for veterans’ benefits, recognizing that the people who serve our country should get priority over the disgraceful amounts of spending on corporate subsidies and wasteful pork barrel spending. He also pushed for various initiatives to ensure that veterans who are eligible for benefits know what they are entitled to and have the resources to obtain their benefits.
I am old fashioned and do believe character counts. I believe McCain is the man with better character. Obama made a conscious decision to surround himself with Slumlord felon Tony Rezko, and Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers, and racist Rev. Wright. Obama sat in that church 20 yrs! Google; ‘Black Liberation Theology’.
As a State Senator, Obama directed tax dollars to Tony Rezko's company to maintain low income housing in Chicago. Rezko took the money, but did not fulfill his obligation. The Federal Government had to step in, and seize the properties. Many of the buildings were in such disrepair that they had to be razed. Rezko upon receiving the tax money, suddenly was able to donate over $150,000 to Obama's campaign coffers. To me it looks like Rezko simply took his cut, and "donated" Obamas cut to his campaign.
Obama held his first campaign meeting when starting out in the living room of Domestic Terrorist, Bill Ayers. How could Obama not know of Ayers radical past. They were both on the board of the Woods Fund, and The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In addition to this they were neighbors. Obama directed funding to Ayers. Ayers wanted the funding to push his radical education initiatives. The education initiative failed, and over $100 million dollars were gone.
As for Reverend Wright. Here is a man who holds the white population in disdain. How could Obama sit in a church that many years and not hear the sermon. What if he wins and does not hear that emergency 3am. call? This church has an education unit within the church that follows Black Liberation Theology. Again, I ask that everyone take a moment and google that. Obama is not a "post-racial" candidate, but embodies some deep seeded suspicions of whites. I come to this conclusion from Obamas own words:
” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”
“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
"never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..".
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Obama has defended these remarks. He said they were taken out of context. The people at "factcheck.org", stepped in on his behalf. Basically factcheck.org implored readers, "Don't believe your lying eyes."
After Law School, he worked as an executive trainer for an organization that has been in the news lately. He trained on 'tactics'. It's name is ACORN. ACORN is being investigated throughout several states for voter registration fraud. The ACORN volunteers have been indicted and convicted in several cases. It is a naked attempt to steal this election. The real kicker is that the Democrats tried to put funding for ACORN into the financial bailout package that was just passed and signed into law. The House Republicans voted down the first package, and the wording was removed.
No one can say these things about McCain. His biggest "scandal" was the Keating 5 back in the '80's. The Democrats lead investigator, Robert Bennett, recommended that John McCain and John Glenn should have been exonerated. According to Bennett, the Democrats did not want to exonerate McCain, as it would leave only Democratic Senators in trouble.
Sarah Palin, is a lady I can relate to. She connects with Middle America. She is one of us. She knows what it is to shop in WalMart, to have her family's health care cut off, and the need to adhere to a tight family budget. She does not merely 'talk the talk', she 'walks the walk'.
She does not interview well, as we have all watched. She is not a Washington insider that has spent a lifetime doing daily interviews. We have seen her do great at speaking and debating.
As a Mayor and Governor she has taken on "the good old boys network", and won. She had the chutzpah to take on the incumbant Republican Governor and knocked him off in the Alaska GOP primary. Palin has built a reputation for reforming the Wasilla and Alaska government. She ended personal property taxes, and took on big oil.
McCain and Palin are the Mavericks in this election that will bring the governmental change needed at this time.
I must confess. McCain was not my first choice. However, we have only two choices. With the research I have done, I have concluded that McCain is the best choice.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Video 'Burning Down The House' gives explanation of our financial mess
I came across this video and found it to be informative.
This video is well worth the watch! imho
Gives factual and verifiable information of the players involved!
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? V2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY (cut & paste into your address bar)
It has been reformatted to meet copyright law
This video is well worth the watch! imho
Gives factual and verifiable information of the players involved!
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? V2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY (cut & paste into your address bar)
It has been reformatted to meet copyright law
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Ohio Courts Back John McCain
Ohio courts have sided with John McCain. Two Cincinnati voters brought suit after Ohio's Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner instructed election officials to not accept absentee ballot applications.
The McCain campaign had sent out the applications, and under direction of Brunner, the election boards have already illegally rejected approximately 3,500 such applications. On the application at the top there is a box to check indicating the applicant is a qualified voter. However, checking this box is not necessary under Ohio law. The law requires a signature and not a checked box as instructed by Brunner.
Secretary of State, Brunner-D, has said she will follow the courts directive. No word if the rejected applications may be reinstated or if applicants who were rejected will be notified.
The McCain campaign had sent out the applications, and under direction of Brunner, the election boards have already illegally rejected approximately 3,500 such applications. On the application at the top there is a box to check indicating the applicant is a qualified voter. However, checking this box is not necessary under Ohio law. The law requires a signature and not a checked box as instructed by Brunner.
Secretary of State, Brunner-D, has said she will follow the courts directive. No word if the rejected applications may be reinstated or if applicants who were rejected will be notified.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
