Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting)

More Supressed Obama Tapes – This Time From San Francisco

Posted on November 2, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

The San Francisco Chronicle has apparently suppressed audio of a January, 2008 interview with Obama where he describes his cap and trade system and plainly states that his system would bankrupt coal plants. This is the same Obama who wants to spend $15 billion a year for 10 years to develop alternative fuels while refusing to drill in the most oil-rich parts of the nation or even consider building nuclear power plants. What’s his excuse for drilling? That America uses 25% of the world’s oil production and we only have 3% of the world’s oil reserves. He also claims that since it would take some time before we would get the first oil from the increased drilling that it is not an answer to high gas prices at the pumps. He fails to realize that just the announcement of starting to drill would have an immediate negative effect on the oil prices in the futures market which would, in fact, offer immediate relief even before the first drop of new oil hits the markets. This interview is only further proof that Obama’s energy policy is not concerned with actually bringing down energy prices for the average Americans. He is looking to tax American companies, which results in taxing the American people, for the nation’s prosperity. Obama’s policies will only drastically compound the high energy prices and, with his tax increases, further cripple the American economy.

Here’s the excerpt from the interview where Obama says he will bankrupt the coal industry, which will result in massive job losses for all of the Americans employed by coal plants:

“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

For the full-text of his comments, click the link below:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ramifications of Obama’s Wishes

Posted on October 30, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

This is a video that is currently available on Watch the video and keep in mind Obama’s past statements and votes on the abortion issue. After the video is over, try to defend Obama’s policies. This is the main cause Obama wants to protect at all costs with judicial appointments, even to protect the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion and refusing to guarantee health care to infants born-alive after a failed abortion attempt. These practices have no place in a society that claims to be civilized. As I’ve stated before, this is not a religious issue, this is a humanitarian issue of how we will protect the most vulnerable members of society. Obama and his pro-abortion allies support atrocities performed on children that are so awful that if a person was caught performing them on an animal, they would promptly be put in jail for cruelty. Therefore, who can stand up and say that they are worthy of making the decision on whether or not these acts should be committed against a completely innocent infant who never asked to be brought into the world. As we bail out everyone’s bad financial decisions, it becomes apparent that, as a society, we are more concerned with relieving people of the consequences of their bad choices rather than being a responsible society. It is a sad day when we elect leaders who support these awful acts.

View this montage created at One True Media
Born Alive

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

If Obama Thinks We’re Bitter Now, Wait Until November 4

Posted on October 30, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

As Americans are getting closer to heading to the polls, they have every right to be mad as hell about the constant attempts to deceive them that have taken place for, at least, the past 18 months. As Election Day draws near, Barack Hussein Obama is going to be the first candidate in history who was completely able to dictate the narrative of his campaign in major media sources such as the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and the list could keep going on. Obama has been able to label any questions that he doesn’t feel like answering as attempts to stoke the flames of racism and hatred. Apparently, for the first time in history questions about illegal campaign contributions, associations with domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, and a tax policy where the income cut-off to receive tax cuts keeps sinking lower and lower are all considered off-limits for anyone to ask. Obama’s campaign has even used their surrogates in state and local governments to get personal information used to smear a common citizen whose only crime was asking Obama a policy question. Yes, voters have every reason to be mad as hell when heading to the polls. By voting Obama, Americans are only setting themselves up for plenty more reasons to be mad as hell for the next four years. However, if Obama’s actions throughout his political career show anything, Americans may not have the right to voice their anger under an Obama administration.

Obama holds the average Americans in contempt. He built his entire worldview on contempt for, what he sees, as a racist and inequitable nation resulting from the bigoted middle class. Perhaps this is why he is capable of flat-out lying to the electorate with absolutely no restraint. Even more disgraceful is that the media, who are most responsible for informing the voters, allow Obama to lie freely without any subject. In the case of the L.A. Times, it is now apparent that they even assisted with Obama’s lies by suppressing a video tape showing Obama at a party for a former Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) spokesman, Rashid Khalidi. The tape shows such anti-Israel activities such as a young Palestinian child reading a poem about the “Zionists” committing acts of terrorism. Mark Levin stated on his nightly radio show that credible source said that the tape shows that Obama made very shocking remarks to invigorate the crowd during his toast at the party. Supposedly, the comments stated that Israelis have no God-given right to be in Palestine and that Israel is responsible for genocide of Palestinians. If the tape truly does show Obama making these statements, then the voters do have a definite right to see it for themselves. The Khalidi comments become especially disturbing since the Associated Press has reported that Palestinians are currently cold-calling American voters from the Gaza Strip to ask for their support for Obama. The Obama campaign has also been forced to return over $30,000 to Palestinians in Gaza who bought t-shirts on Obama’s website in bulk in order to contribute to his campaign. Voters should also keep in mind that Jesse Jackson, who has referred to Obama as, “part of the family” was in France in October where he told the World Policy Forum that Obama’s Middle East policy would, put a stop to the “decades of putting Israel’s interests first.” No one can forget either that the political chief of Hamas, an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the US government, was on ABC radio in April of 2006 where he stated, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.” However, anyone who mentions all of these facts is immediately labeled as a right-wing extremist looking to personally smear Obama. Instead of criticizing voters who ask, the media should be demanding that Obama explain if he is as pro-Israel as he states he is, why is it that so many of Israel’s strongest opponents line up to support him? Anyone in the press who refuses to look for an answer to these questions beyond the Obama campaign’s talking points, has only proven that they have no business claiming to be objective sources of information.

So even though the media allows Obama to claim that there’s no politician more pro-Israel than himself without any further questions, they proceeded to dig up any negative piece of information they could about a man who merely stood in his own driveway and asked Barack Obama a question about tax policy. The man, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber,” had the unfortunate experience of having Barack Obama walk up to Wurzelbacher’s driveway while going door-to-door to drum up support. Wurzelbacher took the opportunity to voice his concerns to Obama about Obama’s tax proposals. Wurzelbacher stated that he was looking to buy the plumbing business he works for and Obama’s tax rate increase on anyone making over $250,000 (or whatever the threshold was that day) would severely limit his ability to hire more workers and expand the business. This is when Obama made his, now infamous, statement that, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” With one short answer, Obama made a mistake and let the cat out of the bag to his true priorities when deciding tax and economic policies. Instead of economic growth, Obama is more concerned with finding policies that focus on social justice, thus the redistribution of income from those he considers well off to those not as successful. Even though it was Obama’s mistake, who took the fall for his bad answer? Wurzelbacher is who took the fall. Almost immediately after making the comments, the media had drug out all sorts of negative news about Wurzelbacher such as he did not have a current plumbers license, he owed back taxes, and even went so far as to imply that he is not even registered to vote. How would any of this information make Obama’s answer about his true tax policy goals any less relevant? Both Obama and Biden went on the warpath against the average American who asked a question of Obama when he showed up, unannounced, in Wurzelbacher’s driveway. Biden told Jay Leno on the Tonight Show that he wasn’t aware of any plumbers who make a quarter-million dollars a year. At a rally, Obama mocked John McCain for fighting for a guy who’s a plumber. News came out on October 29 that Julie McConnell, a clerk for the Toledo Police Department, is being brought up on charges of gross misconduct because she accessed Wurzelbacher’s official records after the third debate. The Toledo Police Department has also stated that Wurzelbacher’s records were illegally accessed a total of four times. So far, one search has been accounted for, now who made the other three searches and to who in the Obama campaign did they send the information?

The blog, Flopping Aces makes a very good point about the uproar when it was discovered that State Department officials ran searches on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After the reports came out, it was front page news for the next few weeks. The Clinton and Obama searches ended up in a widely publicized investigation and people ended up losing their jobs for the actions. When is the press going to feel outraged over government officials using their positions to assault a common citizen whose only mistake was to trust Obama when approached in his own driveway? Wurzelbacher made the mistake of crossing Barack Obama and this is how Obama’s cronies in the government punished him for Obama’s mistake of speaking about his true policy goals. How will Obama and his supporters use their governmental powers to suppress questions if Obama gets into the Oval Office? Americans can count on an assault on both their freedom to question their government and their freedom to prosper.

Obama’s true feelings about average Americans were perfectly summed up last April at a San Francisco fundraiser where only the wealthiest of the liberal elites were present. During his speech, which he thought would never be heard by anyone outside of the room, Obama said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” These were Obama’s comments when he was among his closest of allies. These comments came when Obama thought the cameras and tape recorders were off and he was finally able to drop the campaign act and speak from his heart. This is the same Obama who claims that John McCain is completely out of touch with the middle-class. This is the same Obama who said in a radio interview in 2001 that he was disappointed with the Constitution for not allowing the government to do more to the people. He also said that he wished the Supreme Court would have pursued policies that were more distributive of wealth during the Civil Rights Movement. It doesn’t take a right-wing extremist to understand that the redistribution of wealth was the number one main priority in Marx’s vision of socialism. However, when a news anchor asked a very rare and uncharacteristically hard question of Joe Biden if Obama’s policies were socialist, Biden smirked and asked her if it was a real question. After the interview, the Obama campaign told the station that they were cancelling the already-scheduled interview with Biden’s wife and they were also cutting them out of any future interview opportunities. Not long after the Obama campaign made their announcements, the Obama-infatuated media then proceeded to report relentlessly about the anchorwoman’s husband in an effort to ruin her professional reputation. All of this was because someone on the Obama campaign was actually asked a non-softball question. Once again, the Obama campaign went into attack mode on an average American because she didn’t blindly buy into Obama’s policies and talking points.

This is the same Obama who also told his followers at a rally outside of Las Vegas to argue with their neighbors and friends and “get in their face” to tell them that Obama “supports the Second Amendment.” This is the first presidential campaign in a very long time where the candidates will not have been asked in a widely publicized event, such as a presidential debate, about their views of the Second Amendment. Perhaps the question has been avoided because Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the most anti-gun ticket to ever run for president. Throughout Obama’s political career he has never found a gun control bill that he would not vote for. He has publically stated that he believes all handguns should be banned. Obama even served on the board of the Joyce Foundation which gives substantial funding to many groups who advocate gun control and outright banning of private ownership of firearms. During an interview, Obama also stated that he has always opposed concealed carry permits and he always will work to prohibit the practice. The same politician who believes abortion in all forms should be legalized and is protected as a fundamental freedom despite the fact that no voter has ever been allowed to express their support or opposition to the issue wants to create a federal law to abolish all state conceal carry laws which the voters in each state approved. After the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama falsely stated that the bill was not just a ban a single form of abortion. (And the most barbaric and savage form at that.) He said, “Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure…That presumption is also wrong.” Yet Obama doesn’t consider banning handguns an infringement on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Obama will fight to protect abortion at all costs, even though there is no explicit Constitutional right granted, rather the Supreme Court created the right. But he will stop at nothing to abolish the explicit right granted in the Second Amendment which states “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against absolving homeowners of criminal charges who protect themselves and their families from a home invader by using a handgun, despite living in a community where they are banned. He voted against the bill and, despite his vote, the bill passed. Obama then voted against it again when he was one of a handful of senators who voted against overriding the governor’s veto. Luckily for Illinois residents, there was a majority in the state senate to override the veto. If Obama takes office with a supermajority in both houses of Congress, nothing will be able to stop him from rubberstamping any anti-gun legislation. Gun owners should be appalled. From his history, Obama has supported raising taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%, raising the legal age to own a firearm to 21, and even to ban most calibers of ammunition used for hunting. Despite his horrible record of working to destroy gun owners’ rights, Obama has still not been questioned in the media when he claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment. If the media has their way, no one will even consider it an issue when they go to the ballot boxes on November 4.

Obama writes in his memoirs about his grandmother’s racism when she once came home afraid because a beggar, who was black, was acting aggressively to her as she went to the bus stop. (It should be noted that his “racist” grandmother rode the bus to work because she and Obama’s grandfather sacrificed heavily to send Obama to the most prestigious private school in Hawaii.) Obama labeled her racist during the campaign when it surfaced that he had been a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s hate-based church for the past 20 years. When the media started showing clips of Rev. Wright yelling during his sermons, phrases such as, “No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America,” and referring to the US as the “United States KKK of A,” Obama claimed that Wright was just like the old uncle in everyone’s family who says things that shock people. He then went on to claim that he could no more disassociate with Wright, than he could with his own grandmother who was racially prejudiced as he related the story about his grandmother and the beggar. Throughout his autobiographies, Obama discusses how he formed his view of the world through extremists like Malcom X, the communist poet Frank Marshal Davis, and how he relied on spiritual leaders such as Rev. Wright and extremist priest Father Pfleger who once threatened to “snuff out” a Chicago gun shop owner where Pfleger was protesting. With this background, Obama’s comments about rural Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion starts to give voters a glimpse into Obama’s true views of the United States. It becomes more difficult to dismiss his wife Michelle Obama’s quote that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life while she was campaigning for her husband. All commentators want to claim that Obama is a true patriot and his past quotes and associations do not take away from his love of his country. This is unbelievable when looking at Obama’s history as a whole. In fact, the only conclusion that someone could reasonably draw is that Obama is a bitter member of society, clinging to his cynicism and racial divide which creates animosity to those not like him.

On November 4, voters need to let Obama know just how bitterl they are from Obama’s insults by voting for McCain. Personally, I am not a large supporter of McCain and I never really have been. But when faced with the prospect of McCain running the country or Obama taking control with a sympathetic Congress and the possibility of appointing up to three Supreme Court justices, the choice becomes crystal clear. Obama will pursue policies of social justice and economic equality that will tear apart the capitalist system that has helped America become the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization. The US and global economies will take decades to recover from the socialist policies Obama promises to pursue. No American will receive a tax cut. Obama’s new spending programs costs, at least, four times as much as his projected tax revenues even after his tax rate hikes. Every American will no longer be working for their own prosperity, instead they will be working twice as hard because they will be forced to not only cover their own needs, and even harder to cover their tax liability. Voters should be mad as hell that Obama and his surrogates in the media have done everything possible to send them into the voting booth without making Obama answer for his lies and contradictions. Voters should let their bitterness help them retire Obama back to the Senate where he can become a footnote of history as the socialist who came closest to being president of the United States of America.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Implications of an Obama Victory to the Supreme Court

Posted on September 15, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

One issue that has not been heavily discussed in the press is the implication this election will have on the ideological composition of the United States Supreme Court. Federal judicial nominees are a very important power granted to the president under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitution says, “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court…” Over the years the Democrats in the Senate have continued to interpret their role in advising and consenting to the appointments to grant them increasingly more power to demand certain beliefs from the nominees they approve. However, even with the Senate expanding their role, the President is the one who chooses the nominees the Senate will evaluate. At no time, has the Senate ever tried to dictate the pool out of which the President should choose the nominees. Therefore, the President is the one who is ultimately responsible for the beliefs and agenda the newly appointed justices will arrive on the Supreme Court to advance. This is an especially important issue that should be on the minds of all voters this November. Just through their party affiliations, Barack Obama and John McCain possess competing views of what is important in selecting a Supreme Court nominee. However, since Barack Obama is the most liberal senator in the US Senate, the values he will seek out in a nominee are polar opposite of those John McCain, and many Americans, will value in a judicial appointment.

Throughout history, Democrats and Republicans have had very different views on how they feel a Supreme Court Justice should interpret the Constitution. Most liberal Democrats favor justices that believe the Constitution is a living document that must constantly be reinterpreted to keep up with a changing society. This view of the Constitution is how the court decided in the Roe v. Wade opinion that abortion is a fundamental right granted to US citizens through the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment. This interpretation often allows justices to impose their political positions on American citizens through maintaining that the Constitution must be reinterpreted to accommodate for issues brought before them. Many critics of this type of judicial reasoning often see judges bending the words of the Constitution any way they see fit in order to legislate from the bench in order to advocate a social agenda. Going back to the Roe v. Wade decision, in this case the Supreme Court was able to declare abortion constitutionally protected through the claim that denying women the ability to have an abortion is a violation of their right to privacy as protected in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the passage in Section 1 that reads, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Loose interpretation of the Constitution is not only used as a method of creating rights, it is also used by the same group of justices to attempt to take away rights. The justices on the current Supreme Court who are in agreement with Roe v. Wade wrote a dissenting opinion during on the case of Heller v. The District of Columbia where they stated the Constitution provides no basis for private firearm ownership even though the Second Amendment ends with, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Through the idea that the Constitution can be reinterpreted at any point in time to accommodate almost any government agenda is a very dangerous scenario because it allows a court to arbitrarily create and take away any right they wish without needing any approval of the people.

Republican presidents have strived to appoint originalist judges. Judges that fall into this category hold that the framers of the Constitution had specific ideas in mind when writing the Constitution. Even though times change, the Constitution was based on fundamental ideas that remain constant over time and provide the guiding principles by which to base new laws and regulations. Subscribers to this judicial belief system are more concerned with applying the rule of law to cases before it rather than advancing a social agenda. While the liberal justices who believe the Constitution is a “living document” which they believe gives them the authority to interpret the Constitution to include, or exclude any rights they are seeking to implement or restrict. This should be one of the most frightening ideas to the American people. This method of interpreting the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the ability to completely circumvent the will of the people in order to further any political ideology the Justices wish.

Those on the left always accuse a Republican president as wanting to stack the Supreme Court with Christian, pro-life, conservative justices in a coordinated attempt to first overturn Roe v. Wade and then to stamp out any political adversaries. This is a view that is often painted as more dangerous to the rights of Americans rather than the liberal “living document” view. However, while the decisions under a liberal-leaning court often establish certain values as law, such as in Roe v. Wade, originalist judges keep the court from legislating on social issues that should be decided by the voters in their respective states. In fact, if the worst case scenario was to occur and a conservative court was to strike down Roe v. Wade, abortion would not be immediately banned. The issue would instead go to the voters and each state would get a chance to decide what they choose to permit. However, as proven since Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, liberal judges take it upon themselves to enact into law any cause they see worthy whether or not it is allowed under the Constitution or even favored by the people. This is a dangerous path for the rights of Americans to essentially grant one branch of government the ability to govern with no recourse.

Supreme Court appointments have been an important issue in the Obama campaign. Obama claims that John McCain must be defeated because he will appoint pro-life justices who will look to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is the main concern Democratic presidential candidates have voiced every election since the court decided the case. On the campaign trail, Obama has given several indications of the political ideology he would seek out in his judicial nominees. On his campaign website, Obama offers a statement on the recent Supreme Court decision that placed restrictions on late-term abortions, the type of abortion procedures that lead to the situations discussed in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act which Obama opposed both as a Illinois State Senator and as a US Senator. (For more details see previous Anti-Obamassiah Refuge post, Obama’s Unfailing Opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.) Obama placed this statement on his campaign website, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”

His statement shows how passionate Obama is about placing absolutely no restrictions on when a pregnancy can be terminated. In fact, in an effort to advance their pro-abortion stances, Obama and Justice Ginsburg have completely dismissed a crucial part of the Roe v. Wade decision. The Roe v. Wade opinion written by Justice Blackmun states, “For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.” In this statement, the court is only legalizing abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. After the first three months, Blackmun writes, “For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” Thus giving the states the ability to regulate abortions performed after the first trimester. In Obama’s crusade to ensure a mother’s right to end her pregnancy up to and even beyond child birth in cases where the abortion attempt is unsuccessful, he has completely dismissed the actual ruling in Roe v. Wade and is focused to expand the decision until there can be absolutely no restrictions on abortion. Obama’s goal is to ensure no restrictions can be placed on abortion in terms of methods allowed, prohibitions of aborting an infant at any time during the pregnancy right up to the point of labor, requiring parental notification of minors who are seeking an abortion, and restricting or limiting the use of tax money to assist mothers seeking abortions in the United States or abroad. To achieve this, Obama looks to appoint justices that hold the same view of the Constitution being open to different interpretations for each issue presented to the court. The reason this is so appalling for a politician to pursue is that the court can, essentially, pass laws from the bench without ever giving the American people or their elected representatives a voice in the process.    

Obama further proves his desire to appoint justices willing to twist the interpretation of the Constitution to allow any law he favors with his past actions against the Second Amendment. On the issue of gun control, Obama has always favored very extreme restrictions on private firearm ownership. While a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against a law that would prevent criminal charges being brought against someone who used a handgun to protect themselves in a home invasion. In Chicago, handguns are banned and homeowners used to be subject to criminal charges if they defended themselves and their families against a burglar by using a handgun kept in the home. Luckily, the Illinois legislature passed a law absolving homeowners from criminal charges in these situations but not with Obama’s support. Obama voted against the bill. When it passed despite of his opposition, the bill was vetoed by the governor. The veto was overridden but not after Obama seized the opportunity to vote against it one more time. When the Supreme Court handed down their decision that the Second Amendment does grant a right to private firearm ownership for self defense, Obama gave a statement that cannot truly be taken seriously in light of his voting record on gun control through both his state and federal senate career. shows how Obama remarked on the Heller decision by stating, “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.” Apparently from his vote against Chicago residents using a handgun for self defense, Obama is not in agreement that the Second Amendment protects the right to self defense.

As far as Obama’s Second Amendment support goes, his other votes and statements he has made in the past help to show what Obama feels are “common-sense, effective safety measures.” These statements help to shed light on what course of action he will be nominating federal judges to pursue. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against lowering the minimum age for a Firearm Owner Identification Card, which all Illinois residents must possess in order to buy a firearm or ammunition, to 18 from 21. The law was proposed to help members of the military who were under 21. (Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18) Obama voted to raise the taxes on firearms and ammunition 500% in Illinois. (Chicago Defender 12/13/99) He also voted against a bill requiring notification of gun owners’ when the state of Illinois ran record checks on them for no legal reason. (Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26) As far as allowing states and municipalities to establish their own gun laws, he actually means that he supports states and municipalities establishing gun control measures that he endorses. He has often referred to a president and court’s responsibility to protect states from other states’ flawed gun policy of allowing concealed carry. He has said, “I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04) These examples should leave no doubt in Obama’s views that, despite the words in the Second Amendment, no individual has the right to self defense through gun ownership. These are just a few examples of specific votes and statements Obama has made in the past that give voters an idea of where he truly stands on Second Amendment issues. As the votes and statements prove, restricting the rights granted in the Second Amendment is an important goal of Obama’s and there can be no doubt in the voters’ minds that he will appoint Supreme Court justices that he feels will promote this agenda of reinterpreting the Constitution to grant absolute rights and court-mandated full government support to abortion-on-demand while blatantly ignoring the precise wording of the Second Amendment that actually does recognize the peoples’ right to firearm ownership. The main difference between the conceal carry laws Obama opposes so much and the abortion ruling he defends with every fiber of his soul, is that the American voters express their desire of having conceal carry permits through state-wide elections. Abortion, however, was sent to the Supreme Court and decided by activist judges before the people even had a chance to voice their disapproval at the ballot box.

No one can forget Obama’s statements in San Francisco at a private fund raising event when Obama thought he was off of the record and he explained, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It is very obvious from these remarks that Obama has no respect for religion or gun ownership, which are both explicitly protected under the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution.

Further proof of the characteristics of potential Obama judicial nominees also comes from looking at his concerns about the last two Supreme Court justices to be appointed. The Senate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were a very partisan process where the Democrat Senators delayed the confirmations as long as they could while they asked many divisive questions which were more concerned with the nominees’ political beliefs rather than their ability to effectively sit on the nation’s highest court and determine the constitutionality of the cases brought before them. Concerns were raised in the press about John Robert’s two adopted children because some wondered how Roberts was able to adopt two white children so close together. The questioning of Alito became so intense and cruel that his wife was brought to tears during the confirmation proceedings. Obama, the self-described, bipartisan solution-seeker voted with the rest of the Democrats when he voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. Why did he oppose the nominations? Because, as he expressed repeatedly, he said that they were crucial to the conservative right’s ultimate plan of repealing Roe v. Wade. This has been the Democrat Party’s main issue in the last three Republican presidents’ judicial nominees. Perhaps the most notorious example of the Democrats’ brutal attempts to disqualify a Supreme Court appointment was during the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas. This is where the party that supports affirmative action, tried desperately to ruin the second black man to be nominated to the Supreme Court’s personal and professional reputation in their efforts to protect their holy grail of Roe v. Wade.

This issue is not only about abortion and gun rights, although both are very important issues. A judiciary that Obama would be allowed to stack in his favor would also be expected to advance his extreme leftist ideas. Among these are his positions on whether or not employees can use a secret ballot system when voting whether or not they want union representation. Obama, through his feeling of indebtedness to the labor unions, sides with their goal of removing secret ballot from these employee votes, which would no doubt, subject those who vote against union representation to union and fellow employee scrutiny.

Also at issue is Obama’s support of gay marriage. Gay marriage is not only about preserving the sanctity of the traditional family; there is also an aspect which would affect almost every church-going American. If the Supreme Court were to rule that a ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional, most likely the deciding justices would claim the ban as running contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as they have used for most of their social engineering decisions in the past. If this were the case, any church that did not want to perform homosexual marriages would then be liable to class action law suits which would place the churches in the position of either changing basic tenets of their theological beliefs or leaving themselves open to bankrupting class action law suits. All of this could be done without any input from the voters or their elected representatives.

Perhaps the most amazing issue Obama has supported which he could make law with a Democrat Congress and a self-appointed judiciary would be making US citizens liable to an International Criminal Court (ICC.) This is an issue that Obama has weighed in on in the past. In David Freddoso’s book, The Case Against Barack Obama, he discusses Obama’s support of America entering into a treaty that would place US citizens under the ICC’s jurisdiction despite the court’s lack of a presumption of innocence and due process rights which are at the foundation of the American judicial system. The ICC also brings up concerns of placing US military in risk of being tried by a foreign court for military actions. Placing America under the jurisdiction of a foreign court also calls the nation’s sovereignty into question. In 2004, Fredosso discusses Obama’s comments to a small liberal publication when he voiced strong support for the ICC and blamed the Bush Administrations, “general arrogance that was on display before Iraq…it was true of our unilateral rejection of the International Criminal Court which, had we been a signatory, could have actually dealt with Saddam Hussein.” Obama conveniently doesn’t mention how the US waited for months before acting to give the United Nations a chance at solving the problem in Iraq. In several questionnaires leading up to the 2008 election, Obama gives vague answers about his support for the ICC. A questionnaire from Citizens for Global Solutions asked about Obama’s support for treaties such as the ICC, Kyoto Treaty, Law of the Sea, and Test Ban Treaty. Without specifically mentioning the ICC Treaty, he does say he approves of such treaties but he does not give specifics of which treaties he supports. With a Supreme Court tailored to Obama’s agenda, Americans very well might become subject to a foreign government that does not afford them the same protections they receive under the US Constitution. Obama supports this treading on American Constitutional rights despite his Harvard Law degree and work as a constitutional attorney.

So how is the process any different when Republican senators are confirming justices nominated by a Democrat president? To give an idea, during the entire history of the Supreme Court, twelve nominees have been outright rejected by the Senate. No Democrat president has ever had a nominee rejected by a Republican senate. Is this because the Democrat presidents don’t nominate controversial justices? No, it is actually very much to the contrary. President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. She was the first justice to voice her support for Roe v. Wade during her confirmation hearing; she supported the decision in Roe v. Wade even though she described the ruling as, “heavy-handed judicial intervention.” She is also considered by many to be the most liberal activist judge to ever sit on the court and probably the current justice on the court most supportive of the “heavy-handing judicial intervention” known as the Roe v. Wade decision. The difference lies in the different approaches taken by Democrats and Republicans when considering court nominees. Democrats will fight the confirmation of a justice that they believe is a threat to Roe v. Wade, which is any justice that decides cases purely on powers granted in the Constitution instead of creating the powers they wish were contained. However, the Republicans mostly confirm judges based on the qualifications they have to sit on the bench. They hold a belief that the voters have voiced the direction they would like the Supreme Court to take when they elect a Democrat president. This is the reason why John McCain along with most Republicans voted to affirm both Justices Ginsburg and Breyer when President Clinton nominated them to the high court.

While the issue of Supreme Court appointments is not front-and-center in this election it should be a deciding factor in every voter’s decision this November. Activist Supreme Court Justices have recently proved what they are capable of in their 2005 decision in Kelo v City of New London where the court ruled that private land can be confiscated by the government for the use by another private individual or company in the name of economic development. This ruling was before the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. This ruling came from the Supreme Court shaped by Bill Clinton and it ruled that an American citizen’s land can be taken over by another non-government entity for private use for economic development. Essentially, no one is safe from a government deciding their home would be better used as a Costco. Obama and his campaign want to scare voters into believing that a conservative court places a priority on pressing their morals on the American People. However, through the liberal justices’ twisting of the Constitution, especially the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, an Obama-sympathetic court will, in fact, impose their social agenda on every American without giving any voice to the American voters or their duly elected representatives. The Kelo Decision is just a recent example of what voters have to lose by allowing a president to give the Supreme Court a liberal bias. Even if Obama’s worst nightmare is realized and the Supreme Court was to strike down Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion would only go to the voters to decide. In no way would abortion be immediately declared illegal. The next president may have the chance to fill up to three Supreme Court justices. If Obama is the one who makes these appointments, Americans will lose their voice on very divisive social issues.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Statistical Proof that Obama isn’t the Bipartisan Uniter that he Claims to be

Posted on September 15, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", News on Obama's Competition, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

This is an article from the Washinton Times. Obama supporters will only dismiss this because of the editorial content of the newspaper, however, as shown through examples on this blog, most news sources are committed heavily to covering for Obama’s short-comings. Despite Obama’s claim throughout the entire election that he is the non-partisan uniter, while McCain is mearly a Bush Administration mouthpiece, the article shows how John McCain partnered 55% of the time with Democrats to produce solutions to tough issues such as campaign finance reform. Obama, on the other hand, partnered with Republicans 13% of the time in Congress and he addressed such serious issues as dedicating a US postage stamp to Rosa Parks. (As if that issue was a party-divided vote.) This is just further proof that an Obama presidency will only work for those on the extreme left who agree with him. There will be absolutely no consideration for anyone outside of Obama’s political beliefs.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Second Amendment Support that Only Obama Could Give

Posted on August 19, 2008. Filed under: Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

Obama is a staunch supporter of abortion rights. He opposes any restriction of what he deems is a fundamental constitutional right. While he sees no problem finding the wording in the Constitution to declare abortion a fundamental right, he is not able to gather from the Second Amendment that United States citizens to have a universal right to firearm ownership. Obama expressed his deep concerns for the recent Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia where the court struck down Washington D.C.’s decades-long restriction of maintaining an operable firearm in the home for self defense purposes. Obama has stated in the past that he feels states and municipalities should have the ability to enforce what they consider to be “sensible” gun control laws. However, his view of sensible varies greatly from what most law-abiding gun owners see as sensible. Also, Obama seems to lose this belief of allowing states and municipalities to establish their own gun laws once he is in the Oval Office.

Obama has deep ties to extreme gun control advocacy groups. He sat on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation for eight years and made over $70,000 in directors fees. The Joyce Foundation helps fund groups trying to further the cause of gun control. Dr. Jerome Corsi discusses in his book, “The Obama Nation,” that the Joyce Foundation gave out at least nine grants totaling $2.7 million to gun control advocacy groups. While Obama was on the board, the foundation gave $20,000 to the Violence Policy Center which they used to publish a book titled, “Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” This is a subject Obama has kept near to his heart. While an Illinois Senator, Obama introduced bills to ban the sale and transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, limit legal gun owners to buying one handgun per month, and requiring child-safety locks on all firearms.

Corsi also highlights an Illinois gun case that involved Obama. A 52 year-old man named Hale DeMar was arrested when he shot a burglar that had broken into his house on two separate occasions. The burglar broke into the residence while DeMar and his wife and children were sleeping one night. Fearful that his family was in danger, DeMar went to his safe, retrieved his handgun and shot the burglar, causing him to flee the house by crashing through a front window. The burglar, with an extensive criminal record, was arrested after he drove DeMar’s BMW SUV to an area hospital to seek treatment. A couple of weeks later, the community’s police chief arrested DeMar for violating the town’s handgun ban with charges that could have resulted in large fines and even jail time. Remember, DeMar was the victim of two burglaries by the same criminal. The charges were later dropped by the Cook County prosecutors amid a large public outcry.

This case caused the Illinois State Senate to draft Senate Bill 2165 which would assert a right of self defense in cases such as DeMar’s. The measure passed by a vote of 38 – 20. The bill passed the State House, was vetoed by Governor Rod Blagojevich, only to have the veto overridden by a vote of 86 – 25. As expected, Obama was sure to vote against the bill both times it came before him.

This leaves the question of what would Senator Obama see as “sensible” gun control laws? Obviously, he is perfectly fine with prosecuting someone who finds themselves in one of the most frightening experiences of their life of being confronted with an intruder in their home. In such situation, how can an individual not be expected to assume that the intruder means to harm them and their family? Wouldn’t most people choose to protect their families with any means possible in this situation? Apparently, Obama thinks one should practice self-restraint in this situation and play a submissive role to the intruder. Fortunately, Obama was in the minority with his opposition and the law was passed but what would sort of legislation would we expect from a President Obama with a sympathetic Congress?

Also, as president, it would seem that Obama would prefer to not allow the states and municipalities the freedom to set their own gun control laws. He has voiced support for changing some states, “flawed conceal carry laws” through a federal law repealing any conceal carry permits that have been issued by any state. He has also stated his support to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of all handguns and also to ban rifle ammunition very widely used for hunting. On the tax front, he proposes increasing the taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%. That is not a typo; he is in support of a 500% tax increase. Obama’s plan would also require a government-issued license in order to own or purchase a firearm. While he is cracking down on law-abiding gun owners, he is also in support of restoring the voting rights of over five million criminals, many who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

Obama’s campaign never misses an opportunity to emphasize that Obama has grand visions for the United States of America and he is eager to take the country in a whole new direction. The direction he desires for gun rights is not only severely unconstitutional but it is a direction that has already been taken by other countries such as Great Britain and Australia. A brief glimpse of their violent crime rates before and after implementing many of the same laws Obama favors shows how these restrictions on law-abiding citizens only leave them more vulnerable to increased crimes. Since the laws were enacted in Britain, burglaries with the homeowners present increased rapidly along with other bold violent crimes.  Obama claims to be a new politician but he is only proposing the same regulations that groups sponsored by the Joyce Foundation have been endorsing for decades.

Perhaps the most ironic part of Obama’s stance on the Second Amendment is seen when contrasted with his abortion stance. Obama has diligently fought any law that could be remotely construed as restricting abortion-on-demand. When discussing abortion, B. Hussein Obama often mentions that abortion is a fundamental right granted by the Constitution. Yet any study of the Constitution will show that the word “abortion” is never mentioned once. Nor are the phrases “terminated pregnancy” or even “baby killing.” None of those references are anywhere in the Constitution. However, at the same time B. Hussein Obama cannot fathom how anyone could derive a private right to gun ownership when the Constitution’s Second Amendment ends with the words, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Perhaps Obama was not as well-educated at Harvard Law School as he has let on if he denies the meaning of those exact words.  

Of course, in true Obama fashion, he has been sure to state publically that he believes in the Second Amendment. From his past voting records and the regulations he has only really proven that he holds the right to an abortion as a more fundamental right granted by the Constitution than the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm as a means of self defense. However, to give Obama credit, he may only be saying that, yes he believes the Second Amendment exists but he is unsure of what it states. That would be the only way that someone could speak so adamantly out of one side of their mouth and profess something completely opposite out of the other side.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Obama’s Unfailing Opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

Posted on August 19, 2008. Filed under: Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

Obama lacks any real political voting record by which to judge him. He conveniently voted “present” 130 times during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate on controversial issues in order to keep his record clean of any divisive stances. There is one issue, however, that he has never failed to consistently support and that issue is abortion. This is proven by his 100% approval by the pro-abortion group the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the constant endorsement he has enjoyed from Planned Parenthood throughout his political career. A look at the bills he has either voted in favor of, or opposed throughout his political career shows how extreme his views are when it comes to the question on the right to end a young human being’s life. (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )


    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?


    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...