I am not much of a fan of John McCain. However, there is no way that I could ever vote for Obama. Here is a good summary of why Obama and other liberals are not worthy of my vote.
Sure, things in America are not so great and McCain may or may not continue many of Bush's policies. Obama's mantra is "change we can believe in." But change is not always good. Sure, I believe in the changes an Obama administration would bring, I just don't like them.
Spread the wealth!
An admission that Obama wants to use the power of the federal government to forcefully steal more of your money.
Barbara West of Florida's WFTV grilled Joe Biden about a potential Obama administration's marxist leanings. She even quoted Karl Marx ("from each according to his ability, to each according his need") and asked how Obama is not a Marxist if he intends to "spread the wealth."
Biden asks if the question is a joke. Personally, I find nothing funny about Obama's Marxism.
I'm mesmerized by Biden's last comment. When asked what he would say to people who are concerned that Obama wants to turn America into a socialist country, such as Sweden, Biden said, "I don't know anyone who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican party." Hey Biden, you big jabroni, you must not know any Libertarians. I am no where near the "far right wing of the Republican party" and Obama's marxist leanings scare me.
Some pickings from the internet on Obama and guns.....
Barack Obama Supports Gun Rights (NOT!)
Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners
The Obama Nightmare
Obama’s Anti Gun Rights Record and He Must Not Be Elected.
www.GunBaNObama.com
McCain has come to the great realization (finally) that something isn't quite right with Obama's taxation policy.
McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it."
Shuffling wealth? Sounds to me like "redistribution of wealth." A phrase which absolutely nauseates me.
I am not endorsing McCain's economic policies, although, McCain's economic policies would be less detrimental to America than Obama's.
If we really want fairness in the tax code we need to institute the flat tax or the FairTax. This whole "redistribution of wealth" concept and the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is merely Marxist BS.
How much does Barack Obama speak for you? Find out:
Out of the 48 or so question in the test, I agreed with Vladimir Lenin, er...I mean Barack Obama on just 2 questions.
If Obama is elected president, Jesse Jackson claims that, "'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades' will lose a great deal of their clout."
Remember that J.J. is the man who said, "Barack's been talking down to black people.... I want to cut his nuts off" and of course called Jews "Hymies" and NYC "Hymietown."
I'm glad that we "Zionists" (a.k.a. Jews) are loosing control of America. Running America from my living room is a bit tiring.
One of my favorite slogans from the desk of one of my most admired politicians.....
There is a push in some areas of the country to get ex-felons to the polls this November. I don't have much of a problem with voting laws which allow people, convicted of certain felonies, to regain their voting rights after their debt to society has been paid in full. But I do have a problem with someone mounting an effort to help someone, in this case ex-felons, under the guise of actually giving a damn about the people that they claim to want to help. There is often something more sinister behind it all.
Push to register felons to vote could aid Obama
Here are a few interesting excerpts:
"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Undaunted by the heat, James Bailey spent his late-summer afternoons walking Virginia's bleakest neighborhoods on the hunt for ex-cons — each a potential voter who might cast the decisive ballot in this hotly contested state........Interesting.......so this effort is not about helping people who have committed crimes, paid their debt to society and would like to return to and contribute to society......its about getting Obama elected.Nationally, there are roughly 4 million released felons whose convictions have cost them the right to vote at least temporarily, if not permanently. To return to the ballot box, felons must negotiate suffrage laws that vary from state to state, in many cases working with election officials who can be both unfamiliar with the law and hostile to former convicts seeking to register......
Such challenges (getting felons to attempt to get their voting rights restored) matter little to Bailey and others trying to return former criminals to voter rolls, an effort they consider crucial in light of the results of the past two presidential elections: A shift of a few hundred votes in Florida in 2000 would have changed the outcome of the presidential race, and the results in 2004 came down to a margin of 119,000 votes in Ohio.
The nonprofit groups and individual activists making the push on felons' behalf agree the effort is broader this year than in previous elections, even if they aren't necessarily making a coordinated push. They expect that effort to benefit Barack Obama more than John McCain, given that the population of former felons is disproportionately black."
"Kenneth Glasgow served 14 years on robbery and drug charges in Alabama. Now a pastor, Glasgow launched a voter registration drive inside the prisons in Alabama, where state law allows voting by felons convicted of lesser crimes such as possession of small amounts of drugs, battery or attempted burglary — even while still serving a sentence.'It's not a black-white thing,' Glasgow said. 'It's that people will see Republicans standing against having people's rights restored while the Democrats aren't.'"
Only Republicans, and not Democrats, stand against restoration of people's rights? Democrats are not standing against people's rights? Really??!! How about my right to privacy, my right to self-defense and gun ownership or my right to keep more of the money that I earn?
Both parties are guilty of expanding government and eroding our individual rights. But to claim to care about ex-felon's voting rights when its really about the "outcome of the last 2 presidential elections" is disingenuous. To claim that a major political party is not working against individual rights when, in fact, that same party has routinely worked to erode the individual rights of law abiding citizens is ridiculous.
The Senate has passed a $700 billion financial bailout. Any idea where the government will get all of this money? It will come out of your pocket. Right after you cough up the money to pay off our ridiculous deficit.
A picture sent to me this morning by a friend and coworker......
Not that I agree with a bailout of any private corporations by our federal government with our tax dollars, but at least McCain wants to do what he is getting paid to do - work in Congress.
McCain Suspends Campaign to Help With Bailout: "John McCain will suspend his presidential campaign Thursday and has asked to postpone his debate Friday with Barack Obama so the two senators can return to Washington to help negotiate a Wall Street bailout, an approach that Obama promptly rejected."
So John McCain has decided to see if he can help, as a member of Congress, with our current financial situation. He wants to go back to Congress to do the job he has, not the job he wants.
Obama disagrees with McCain essentially saying (in my interpretation), "screw Congress and the financial crisis, I want to be the next president, let's debate!" BHO said: "Such disruptive measures were unnecessary." BHO thinks that if McCain delays the debate to do the job for which McCain (and Obama) are being paid, that's "disruptive."
More Obama: "There are times for politics and there are times to rise above them, do what is right for the country. This is one of those times." Hey you big dummy, Congressional votes are part of politics, voting on bills and issues is part of what is right for the country and its your current occupation. Staying on the campaign trail and missing a large majority of Congressional votes is not right for the country. Members of Congress should get paid according to the number of times that they vote "yes" or "no" on issues. Showing up and voting "present" shouldn't count.
The prefix "Con-" is the opposite of the prefix "Pro-" which makes Congress the opposite of progress. Obama examplifies this idea.
I'm gonna go drink a couple more beers. This election is depressing. I'd vote for Bob Barr if it wasn't the equivalent of voting against McCain and for the next Vladimir Lenin.
...but he's still a Marxist.
No matter how much "lipstick" the media puts on Obama, he's still a marxist.
Steve Chapman has written a superb editorial at chicagotribune.com about the lack of individuality and freedom and the rise of collectivism in America. He specifically sites the lack of any mention of the idea of freedom in the recent republican and democratic conventions.
The article is so good that I have reposted the article in its entirety.
"'We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom. —Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination'
This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was 'Serving a Cause Greater than Self.' Tuesday was 'Service,' Wednesday was 'Reform' and Thursday was 'Peace.'
So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.
Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were 'One Nation,' 'Renewing America's Promise' and 'Securing America's Future.' The party proclaimed 'an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.' Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.
Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.
You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but Barack Obama has a different idea.
The 'essence of America's promise,' he declared in Denver, is 'individual responsibility and mutual responsibility'—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The 'promise of America,' he said, is 'the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.'
In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.
'All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself,' wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. 'The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.'
That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: 'We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.'
Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?
Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like—the right to a 'homosexual lifestyle,' the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.
Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.
While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.
But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value—money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude—rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.
The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you."
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. He blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman and his e-mail address is schapman@tribune.com
Maybe they did.
One of the arguments against an individual's right to bear arms is that the second amendment needs to be interpreted in the context of the time in which it was written. Anti-gunners claim that the Bill of Rights was written with the idea of maintaining a militia against foreign forces (i.e. the British during the American Revolution) and not with giving individuals the right to own firearms for personal defense.
Anti-gunners also argue that we (people who favor gun rights) cannot claim that the second amendment could be about individual rights or personal protection since we could never really know what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were thinking at the time.
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson disagreed when he borrowed a quote from the 1700's criminologist Cesare Beccaria: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
So people were thinking of personal defense against criminals well before modern times. Fascinating......
Michael Moore isn't the only one who considers the timing of an impending natural disaster relative to the Republican National Convention evidence of divine intervention and proof that God exists.
We now have former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler getting in line behind Michael Moore (not that there is much room behind Moore):
These people claim to be concerned for the average working American, especially those who were affected by hurricane Katrina and are now evacuating from hurricane Gustav. I HAVE to call bullshit!! Anyone who thinks about gaining political points during a potential natural disaster only cares about one thing. And its not the average American.
John McCain has chosen the very popular first-term Governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate for the 2008 election.
Obama's campaign immediately came out and claimed that Palin has zero experience in some areas: "'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,' Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement." Does that mean that the Democrats have put someone with zero experience even closer to the presidency?
Maybe I am just one of those bitter people who cling to their guns too much for Mr. Clean and Articulate's liking.
From Neal Boortz and Nealz Nuze: Obama on guns: "Just how does The Chosen One feel about the 2nd Amendment? After the Supreme Court ruled on the DC gun ban Obama was somewhat trapped. His previous position in favor of the ban was inoperative, so he had to come up with a new position. So ... what would that be? The Big BO's position on guns is that nobody in this country should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon unless they are retired law enforcement officers or members of the U.S. military. We could phrase this another way: Nobody can carry a concealed weapon unless they work for the government as a member of the U.S. military or civilian law enforcement, or used to work for the government as a police officer. This is Obama, folks. Privileges for government and those who work for government ... but for the common man, not so much.
Ahhhhh .... But he's so suave, so debonair, and he speaks so well! It doesn't really matter what he says, but he sure says it good!"
I could not have said it better myself.....
A friend and fellow blogger posted about the following video where BHO claimed that if he was president at the time, he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS. BHO almost said that Clarence Thomas was a bad choice at the time because of inexperience. Now that's the pot calling the kettle....oh nevermind, I was about to be politically incorrect.
Interestingly, having less that 200 days in the US Congress is enough experience to be the president of the United States.
FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content : "There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and 'government dictating content policy.'
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. "
A huge concern among conservatives? What about anyone who despises the idea of the government dictating what we listen to (and watch and read online)? How about anyone who thinks that the UNfairness doctrine interferes with the freemarket and unfairly dictates what radio stations (non-government entities) broadcast?
Whose fault is it that the radio stations broadcast what earns money? Radio stations are businesses built to make a profit (Oooooh, "evil" profits). Since liberals failed at talk radio they want to make things "fair" by using the power of the government to "even the playing field." Is Congress going to start dictating that rap stations give equal air time to classical and country music....just for the sake of "fairness?" What a bunch of complete and total oppressive government crap.
Comrades, everyone be quiet and let's all be good citizens!
While I am no fan of John McCain, I have serious concerns about Barack Obama and what Obama wants to do as president. When I ask people specifics about why they're voting for Obama, I get answers such as, "he's very eloquent" and he's "for change." Fine...but what type of changes? Most Obama supporters that I've spoken with don't seem to be able to name any specifics about the Obama platform other than his "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq (which is really a 16-18 month redeployment - significantly longer than "immediate"). Perhaps I am asking the wrong people, such as those in this McCain campaign video.
Ok, ok, Obama does have very soft eyes.
Mr. Voight recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times and, in my opinion, Voight has a big set of nads. Knowing that he would upset the liberal apple cart that is Hollywood, Mr. Voight sees Obama for exactly what Mr. Change really is, a socialist.
While I do not agree with everything that Mr. Voight writes, Mr. Voight's overall premise that Mr. Change is a socialist is, in my humble opinion, right on.
VOIGHT: My concerns for America Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people: "We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.
Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.
The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.
The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.
Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.
Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.
If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.
Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero. This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way (emphasis mine)."
Hollywood will likely boycott Mr. Voight and he will certainly have trouble finding work. I give him a ton of credit for taking a very unpopular stance among his socialist peers. Kudos Mr. Voight.
