Looking for a reason to vote against Obama?
Watch this very short YouTube clip:
Forget the pledge... forget his religion... the real deal killer is that Barack is a commie! Of course, the Democrat (Evil) Party has been "Communism Lite" ever since LBJ, so this isn't really much of a surprise, when you think about it!
Someone on this blog once issued a challenge to go to the Obama website, and see for yourself what he stood for. Well, I did exactly that, and discovered that -- no matter what the "problem" -- more government, and more taxpayer's money poured down the drain, was always the "answer." That cinched it for me... this Fall, I'm NOT going to throw away my vote on "the lesser evil."
Instead, I'm going to cast my vote for the GREATER EVIL -- Hillary Rodham Clinton for President in '08!!! Working together, we can put this dying shell of a country out of its misery, once and for all!
Forget the pledge... forget his religion... the real deal killer is that Barack is a commie! Of course, the Democrat (Evil) Party has been "Communism Lite" ever since LBJ, so this isn't really much of a surprise, when you think about it!
Someone on this blog once issued a challenge to go to the Obama website, and see for yourself what he stood for. Well, I did exactly that, and discovered that -- no matter what the "problem" -- more government, and more taxpayer's money poured down the drain, was always the "answer." That cinched it for me... this Fall, I'm NOT going to throw away my vote on "the lesser evil."
Instead, I'm going to cast my vote for the GREATER EVIL -- Hillary Rodham Clinton for President in '08!!! Working together, we can put this dying shell of a country out of its misery, once and for all!
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:23 PM
50 Comments:
If some of WABs latest posts and this subject by Kendrick doesn't convince you that these guys are something to behold, then nothing will.
Anonymous, Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:47:00 PM:
I take it, then, that you see nothing disturbing, in the prospect of a US President who is so far to the left, that he admires one of the most rotten mass murdering communists of the 20th Century?
Are you even aware of who Che Guevera was, and what he did? Based on the above comment, I'd say there is very little chance that you are. Might I suggest the use of Google, or some other search engine? The truth is out there, if you are interested in pursuing it.
So your saying that Obama put the flag in that office personally...no, then what? Just because it is in a one office in Houston doesn't make the man a communist or a Cuban sympathizer. This is just asinine. What little shred of credibility you two have is slowly deteriorating.
Spanky McFadden said:
So your saying that Obama put the flag in that office personally...no, then what?
The flag was put up by an Obama staffer. It then took TWO DAYS from the time the story was splashed all over the Internet for the Obama HQ to offer the mildest condemnation... saying that the commie flag was "inappropriate."
And that's not good enough. The moonbat who displayed that evil flag should've been condemned in MUCH harsher language, and ordered to leave the Obama campaign. Imagine how any decent person would react to a campaign staffer displaying a Nazi flag (complete with a picture of Adolph Hitler!) on their wall. There would've been howls of outrage, had the display of a Nazi flag been described as merely "inappropriate."
Just because it is in a one office in Houston doesn't make the man a communist or a Cuban sympathizer.
Dude, it took him TWO DAYS to offer the mildest of criticisms! Don't you think that, by itself, is a disgrace? At any rate, what makes Obama a commie (or Commie Lite, if you prefer) is that he belongs to the modern Democrat Party. (In fairness, the GOP is simply the Commie Extra Lite party... don't take my criticism as partisanship-- I hate em all.)
In case you need your memory jogged, here are the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Did you see very much in there that Obama or Hillary would oppose? Didn't think so.
Just because it is in a one office in Houston doesn't make the man a communist or a Cuban sympathizer. This is just asinine.
Suppose a John McCain campaign worker tacked up a Nazi flag, complete with a portrait of Hitler, and McCain waited TWO DAYS after the story broke, before issuing a statement that such a flag was "inappropriate." Would you honestly accept that sort of mild rebuke in the face of such great evil? I sure wouldn't!
What little shred of credibility you two have is slowly deteriorating.
I don't know why you're roping WAB in on this issue. His credibility is his to deteriorate (or not) quite independent of whatever I say or do.
I agree with Spanky. Good grief, just because some idiot put it up doesn't have anything to do with Obama's beliefs. I voted for him in the primary and haven't changed my mind yet. Try a little harder, DUDE. Jeez, I thought I was gonna see and hear something that would knock my socks off. As usual, this blog is failing to do so.
What about promised higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, the slaughter of unborn children and special rights above ebveryone's rights for homosexuals. Those kinds of things knock my socks off. That's why I have to vote for whoever the democrat candidate is. I don't think I have a choice.
Correction; I should have proofread my post. I meant to say that's why I must vote AGAINST whoever the democrat candidate is. And, in my mind, there is no choice.
I am curious 11:39 what are these rights that gays and lesbians will have above everyone else. The right to visit their partners in the hospital, the right to have access to and makes decisions about their partners health care. These are the same rights that we ALL should have and right now they don't. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I do believe these people should have the same rights as everyone else. Now if you have some information that I am lacking please let me know. But if you are simply referring to the basic rights that married couples have, should everyone have those basic rights?
spankiee yo mama musta spanked the wrong end & got some marble misaligned.
Ever hear of power of attorney?
If they had the same rights as everyone else then they wouldn't specifically need a power of attorney, which is expensive and some attorneys would not even do it in these cases, in order to even visit their partner. I have heard cases of a gay person who could not visit his partner (who was incapacitated and dying)in the hospital because the law does not recognize the relationship. Why should gay couples be forced to go through the hassle and expense of attorneys and paperwork just to see their loved ones in the hospital. This is not a moral judgment. And the question is still there, what rights do gays and lesbians want above those of straight couples.
spanky..
The homosexual communitiy has the same rights you and I do. That should suffice. The rub (no pun intended) comes when these people want more than we do. And the real issue of marriage should be settled by what the Bible says. It IS a union between a man and a woman. And yet, these folks want more than that.
I believe someone posted correctly that a power of attorney would fix the problem you mentioned.
Casio says...
It would be a great thing if the blog showed intellect in the choice of topics for discussion as well as qualified discussions. When these kind of topics are chosen, it shows what little common sense it's authors have. Gosh guys, you can do better than this.
I often enjoy reading the bickering that takes place. It often is generated by someone just wanting to stir up emotions, but when the topic is so assinine as these latest, then "Houston, we have a problem."
337 Why don't you move to a muslim country - they treat everyone alike!
ever hear of snopes.com....it says the things you guys are posting about Obama and untrue...
3:37 What makes you different from everyone else? I loved my mother & father, grandparents, brother, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, almost all of my teachers, my male and female neighbors, country, God, Jesus, - just about everyone. Most Americans even put their life on the line for other people - even those who don't appreciate that fact. What greater love is there than laying your life on the line for someone else? ans. - NONE! What's it got to do with sex? NOTHING!
What is the defining difference between your & your attachment vs. everyone else? What do you do that makes you special? AIDS? Hepatitis? Pretending to be what you are not? It's deeper, isn't it?
Lets try fecalism. How do you dignify down & dirty? Of course, call it marriage, the universal sanctified relationship that procreates the human race. Go to church and have a man of his own godly invention join 2 or three perverts in a union of abomination. And what will come of your seeds cast amongst dung.
Guess you want to debate the allure of a dung heap vs. a rose garden. Yes, a little dung makes a beautiful rose, but you don't plow the rose bud asunder and bring the dung home in a vase for the dinner table! You might, but don't try to force it on me! Go back in the closet & stop trying to infect everyone else!
Goodness. How "infected" some minds can get when hatred and resentment obscure good vision! Get a life!
9:59 I would love to respond to that, but I couldn't find a coherent point within that ramble. By the way, I'm not gay, but I do know people who are and they are not viruses that infect others, they are HUMAN BEINGS just like you and me. Maybe instead of blindly hating people you might find it enlightening to talk with someone who has a different opinion or lifestyle than you do.
anonymous..
How on earth could you have associated that post with "gayness" and hatred? Those are entirely your words and not mine. I do not harbor hatred for anyone, regardless of lifestyle or beliefs. Do you?
Again, get a life!
What are you on? March 01, 2008 9:49:00 AM
That didn't make any sense to me.
I also thought you were talking about gays.
The original response was to homosexual "marriage" the defining acts of homosexuality.
It dealt with the the universal act of love, which are most part non-sexual. ie. we love many times more people than we have sex with. Love must be a real turn-off for those who are offended by being reminded it's a lot more than perverse gratification. Hate isn't in the response!
Does AIDS offend you (pl)? Does hepatitus offend you? Does fecalism offend you? Are any of the three not associated with homosexuality? You obviously hate when offended!
Once again, what is it that defines you as homosexual? Throwing a tantrum doesn't change the fact that we know, & we will still know after you have your fit of denial! Yes, we all know the best way to transmit those terrible diseases, too. Reality isn't hate speach. Get a life might be appropriate, but you are looking for something else.
We have more than one dumbocratican on here.
2-29 1/15, 3/37 & 3-1 10/47, 6/30, 10/24
You have tolerance and now demand compromise. Both affect the values of right and wrong.
When you falsify your financial resources statements in order to increase taxation, is it acceptable if 1) an educated official person defends the act, 2) you don't get caught, or 3) you are not charged with a crime? Of course it is, today!
Homosexuality is an abomination, according to the morals of all religions - certainly Christian and Muslim. Muslims apply the death penalty. Our country gradually tolerated it, where the practice was not invasive or in public display. That eroded to condoning the activity and defending the practice. Now you and your liberal base want to sanctify homosexuality with the legal status of marriage. Some of our states have reached that point of perversity.
As we look at our situation of compromise and tolerance, the differentiation between right and wrong is gone. What is free speech if some words are officially prohibited and made a punishable offense because someone is offended? As erosion spreads throughout the bas of our Constitutional Amendments, we find a government of agencies and judges now determining what freedom means, not the written Constitution or the will of the majority of people.
A preacher claims, when you compromise your core beliefs, as in the Ten Commandments, you have no belief, no substance, and no future.
When you can't turn on a radio, TV, read published print, or listen to the trash that is running for president, without being inundated with the homosexual agenda, the practice is no longer non-invasive! It is no longer an issue of committing perverse acts; it is a satanic illusion of blessed love! When they want to religiously and legally sanctify it, it becomes an abomination. Point - when you compromise, you get compromised & this time the punishment may once again be colossal.
anonymous..
I'm no longer sure what the theme of this thread is but, I agree with you about the abomination of homosexuality. However, the left really pushes their agenda, and I've always wondered why. Is it for their votes? They keep blacks duped for their votes, so why not?
Watch and read all of this site:
http://usawakeup.org/
They plan for us to collaspe within.
Stop whining about petty things and look at the big picture.
Anonymous, Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:39:00 PM, said:
Watch and read all of this site:
http://usawakeup.org/
Well, I did what you suggested. Alas, the link took me to a disinfo site dedicated to whipping up paranoid fear about "the muslim under the bed."
If you think islamic terrorism is the greatest threat we face as a nation, you are indeed an optimist! According to the DOJ's official stats, terrorists of all varieties killed 17,138 people beween 1974 and 2004. That works out to an average death count of 572 victims per year. That's tragic, of course, but there are (according to the CIA) 6,602,224,175 people currently living on Planet Earth. That means that your chance of being killed this year by a terrorist, is only 1 in 11,542,350. Here's another way of looking at it: the CIA estimates that 55,260,616 people died last year. That means that, for every person killed by terrorists, 96,608 people died from other causes.
Every death is a tragedy, but we should try to keep some perspective on matters. Even though car accidents in the US kill, every year, about 80 times as many people as are killed, world wide, by terrorists, practically nobody would take seriously the idea of launching a $3 Trillion "war" against car accidents.
To the extent that individual terrorists can be identified (Bin Laden, for instance), it would make sense to put an appropriate "price on their head" and allow the free market in assasinations to solve our problems. But launching a war against a whole country -- which guarantees tremendous numbers of foreign civilians killed, which further inflames the animus against the USA, leading to more terrorism -- is not a wise strategy. It simply isn't worth the cost, in blood or treasure, given the statistical insignificance of the terrorist "threat."
But say you aren't convinced. Say you really believe the Muslims are out to get you, for no good reason. Here is a way to test your thesis, and, in the process, determine te identity of the largest scale terrorist organization in the world...
Step One: Place a classified ad in the Islamic newspaper of your choice, proclaiming your absolute certainty that Allah is not "the one true God of the Universe." Be sure to include your real name and home address!
Step Two: Place a classified ad in the Washington Post, proclaiming your intention to never pay another dime of income tax, no matter how long you live. Be sure to include your real name and home address!
Step Three: Now wait, and see which group of armed thugs comes after you first -- the Moslems, or the Revenuers. (My money is on the latter!)
They plan for us to collaspe within.
That's true. But it's not the Moslems who want to collapse the US, turn the American worker into a serf, and reduce the US to a "resource colony" of foreign creditors, such as China. The fine folks who are bringing that to America, are the plutocrats who own pretty much everything, and their obedient puppets... such as Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Obama.
Stop whining about petty things and look at the big picture.
That's a great idea! Why don't you start by realizing that the "war on terrorism" has always been a sham-- a way to transfer Three Trillion Dollars from the middle class to the plutocrats, to double the value of the oil reserves owned by the plutocrats, to steal Iraq's oil, and force Afghanistan to accept an oil pipeline. And of course, it's been used to scare the ignorant into accepting the destruction of our traditional freedoms.
If you're more worried about "moslem terrorists" than you are the US Federal Government, then you are not perceiving reality very accurately. I hate to be so blunt, but that's the way it is!
Does the term SOCIALIST no longer have any meaning to people or have they just become so accustomed to being given everything they forget someone has to pay the bills. Obama and Clinton are feathers off the same Dodo's back and just like the Dodo if they are elected our nation as we know it will become extinct. They not only advocate late term abortion and support partial birth abortions they both support homosexual marriage and open borders with amnesty for illegals already here.
Here's why I cannot support EITHER democratic candidate for the presidency:
1. Surrender policy in Iraq
2. Bigger government
3. Higher taxes
4. Homosexual rights/marriage
5. Killing of the unborn
4. Open borders
These issues are important and really shouldn't be ignored. But they are. Frightening, isn't it?
What about Obama's preacher.
Do you think he hurt Obama?
I couldn't believe he said "G-- d--"
America. He's a preacher!!
My ancestors didn't own slaves yet was made fight in the Civil War.
Our government did not bring the slave over from Africa. Some man wanting to get rich did.
Our government has tried to do something about it and I thought it had succeeded.
To me the black person should be proud of their ancestors. What they went through has helped them to live in a better world. How would you love to be still living in Africa?
All men and women are created equally and should be treated that way.
regardless of who is elected, borders, language and culture will be obliterated. What else defines us as a unified free country? NOTHING?
Of course - killing babies and fecalism - obominations & perversions of civility that should shake the souls of any who have one.
What is A dying nation to do? All three will eliminate our national soveignty and the little remaining portions Constitution.
Shall we continue privatization in the context of being consoidated & owned with rule by a very few on and off shore billionairs - with an elective government of their choice? Shall we move towards a government controlled economy, controled by the same billionairs?
We don't need a president, we need some good old competition, resurect the Constitution, & throw the rats out who are stealling our country and freedom.
As we ponder the vote - which dying horse is best on the front porch of a citizen who has no way of removing it. Got to agree with McP - Obama is pure evil - McCain is little better, & Hillary is russian roulette with a Thompson on full auto - painless.
Anonymous, Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:19:00 PM, said:
What is A dying nation to do? All three will eliminate our national soveignty and the little remaining portions Constitution.
Well, that's what the American public DESERVES, for not having nominated Ron Paul. Ron Paul never had a chance, huh? Only because people listened to the lies of the mainstream media. In truth, Ron Paul was far more electable than, say, the cross dressing proto fascist Rudy Guliani. A year ago, talking heads on the tube were yammering that Rudy was "inevitable" while Ron Paul was "a joke." But who raised more money, got more delegates, and stayed in the race the longest? Ron Paul!
Shall we continue privatization in the context of being consoidated & owned with rule by a very few on and off shore billionairs - with an elective government of their choice? Shall we move towards a government controlled economy, controled by the same billionairs?
Move TOWARD? Sorry, but we're already there, I'm afraid. Here's what one of my favorite writers has to say on this:
Where the People Don't Rule
by Fred Reed
Common delusions notwithstanding, the United States, I submit, is not a democracy – by which is meant a system in which the will of the people prevails. Rather it is a curious mechanism artfully designed to circumvent the will of the people while appearing to be democratic. Several mechanisms accomplish this.
First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things. Thus the election determines not policy but only the division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The Democrats will never seriously reduce military spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.
Second, the two parties determine on which questions we are allowed to vote. They simply refuse to engage the questions that matter most to many people. If you are against affirmative action, for whom do you vote? If you regard the schools as abominations? If you want to end the president’s hobbyist wars?
Third, there is the effect of large jurisdictions. Suppose that you lived in a very small (and independent) school district and didn’t like the curriculum. You could buttonhole the head of the school board, whom you would probably know, and say, “Look, Jack, I really think….” He would listen.
But suppose that you live in a suburban jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form an organization, canvass for votes, solicit contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome.
The larger the jurisdiction, the harder it is to exert influence. Much policy today is set at the state level. Now you need a statewide campaign to change the curriculum. Practically speaking, it isn’t practical.
Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies. A lot of policy is set by making regulations at some department or other, often federal. How do you call the Department of Education to protest a rule which is in fact a policy? The Department has thousands of telephones, few of them listed, all of which will brush you off. There is nothing the public can do to influence these goiterous, armored, unaccountable centers of power.
Yes, you can write your senator, and get a letter written by computer, “I thank you for your valuable insights, and assure you that I am doing all….”
Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy (which is also impenetrable). A few federal departments get at least a bit of attention from the press, chiefly State and Defense (sic). Most of the government gets no attention at all – HUD, for example. Nobody knows who the Secretary of HUD is, or what the department is doing. Similarly, the textbook publishers have some committee whose name I don’t remember (See? It works) that decides what words can be used in texts, how women and Indians must be portrayed, what can be said about them, and so on. Such a group amounts to an unelected ministry of propaganda and, almost certainly, you have never heard of it.
Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism. The newspapers and networks encourage us to think of them as a vast web of hard-hitting, no-holds-barred, chips-where-they-may inquisitors of government: You can run, but you can’t hide. In fact federal malefactors don’t have to run or hide. The press isn’t really looking.
Most of press coverage is only apparent. Television isn’t journalism, but a service that translates into video stories found in the Washington Post and New York Times (really). Few newspapers have bureaus in Washington; the rest follow the lead of a small number of major outlets. These don’t really cover things either.
When I was reporting on the military, there were (if memory serves) many hundreds of reporters accredited to the Pentagon, or at least writing about the armed services. It sounds impressive: All those gimlet eyes.
What invariably happened though was that some story would break – a toilet seat alleged to cost too much, or the failure of this or that. All the reporters would chase the toilet seat, fearful that their competitors might get some detail they didn’t. Thus you had one story covered six hundred times. In any event the stories were often dishonest and almost always ignorant because reporters, apparently bound by some natural law, are obligate technical illiterates. This includes the reporters for the Post and the Times.
Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of centers of demographic power in competition with the official government. The Catholic Church, for example, once influentially represented a large part of the population. It has been brought to heel. We are left with government by lobby – the weapons industry, big pharma, AIPAC, the teachers unions – whose representatives pay Congress to do things against the public interest.
Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by a class. Here the media are crucial. Unless you spend time outside of America, you may not realize to what extent the press is controlled. The press is largely free, yes, but it is also largely owned by a small number of corporations which, in turn, are run by people from the same pool from which are drawn high-level pols and their advisers. They are rich people who know each other and have the same interests. It is very nearly correct to say that these people are the government of the United States, and that the federal apparatus merely a useful theatrical manifestation.
Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can’t vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don’t want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don’t want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. One party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted electorate doesn’t meddle in matters important to its rulers. It has never heard of them.
To disguise all of this, elections provide the excitement and intellectual content of a football game, without the importance. They allow a sense of Participation. In bars across the land, in high-school gyms become forums, people become heated about what they imagine to be decisions of great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them from feeling left out while denying them power.
It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
When people sense this and decline to vote, we cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy. Nope. Just common sense.
March 11, 2008
Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just-published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be. Visit his blog.
Copyright © 2008 Fred Reed
We don't need a president, we need some good old competition, resurect the Constitution, & throw the rats out who are stealling our country and freedom.
Not just our freedom... which, sad to say, nobody much cares about anymore. The rats are also stealing our money. For instance, just the other day, the Federal Reserve (which is not federal, and has no reserves, but that's another story) pretty much gave JP Morgan Chase bank $30 Billion to buy out Bear Stearns, which was going belly up. Here's a great essay on how the plutocrats are wrecking the economy for their own selfish benefit:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-arent-we-furious.html
As we ponder the vote - which dying horse is best on the front porch of a citizen who has no way of removing it.
Wonderful metaphor!
Got to agree with McP - Obama is pure evil - McCain is little better, & Hillary is russian roulette with a Thompson on full auto - painless.
Hillary offers me the most hope. First of all, she's a true idealogue, so it's a ceratainty that she'll overreach as soon as she's sworn in. This means that, come the midterm elections of 2010, there will be at least some hope that truly conservative Republicans could retake the House and Senate. This sort of action-reaction wouldn't happen if McCain is elected (party unity would take precedence). Nor would Republicans stand up to Obama (for fear of being deemed "racist.")
I say, it's Hillary or bust.
For the most part I agree with the above post by Kendrick. The major problem I have is with the notion being held by many that Mrs Clinton should be elected so the country can be destroyed and more conservative republicans can be elected in the next term. I don't subscribe to the idea of destroying the Nation in order to rebuild it. The election of a socialist such as Senator Obama or Clinton will destroy what is left of this Nation. Both are seeking to buy the election with promises of everyone having everything paid for by someone else. Senator Obama has been exposed as a cheap run of the mill politician who talks sweet but is an America hating racist and Senator Clinton was in compliance with her husband in the most deceitful traitorous behavior in recent history by selling and giving highly sensitive military technology to the Chinese, much of it for personal gain. Before Clinton the Chinese couldn't get a rocket off the ground now they have submarines capable of hitting the country with nuclear weapons.
While Sen. McCain is not my ideal he is by far the best one running and the Nation has a better chance of surviving. Allen Barrett
wab said:
The major problem I have is with the notion being held by many that Mrs Clinton should be elected so the country can be destroyed and more conservative republicans can be elected in the next term. I don't subscribe to the idea of destroying the Nation in order to rebuild it.
Ann Coulter is no dim witted bimbo. She's a political operative with a lot of experience, and she says:
If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)
If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.
There's your choice, America.
Joseph Farah, founder of "World Net Daily," today published an attack on McCain. Here are some extracts:
... the fundamental question on the table is: Just how bad is John McCain?
I'm afraid the answer is: Very, very bad.
For starters, McCain has been, for a very long time, dead wrong on immigration and border policy. He is still dead wrong.
In 2004, voters in his own state passed Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before someone can vote or participate in state giveaway programs. Despite opposition led by McCain, the measure was approved by 56 percent of the vote, with close to 50 percent of Hispanics approving it.
He's not only out of step with Americans on this issue, he's out of step even with his own constituency in Arizona.
He has been a leader in the amnesty cause in the Senate, partnering with Ted Kennedy on the bill's language and sponsorship.
He also led opposition to building the border fence.
Do you really think McCain is going to be any better than George W. Bush on this critical national priority? Chances are he will be even worse.
But what about judges, you ask? Won't a McCain presidency give Americans a chance to reclaim the Supreme Court in the name of the Constitution and original intent?
The evidence is far from conclusive, given that McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the Supreme Court. He also, as is his nature, conspired with Democrats in the Senate to block approval of Bush's most conservative jurists.
He gave us McCain-Feingold – the worst legislative attack on the First Amendment in decades. This law actually restricts political speech prior to elections – a clearly unconstitutional approach to so-called "campaign finance reform."
He's a globalist – standing strong even today behind agreements like NAFTA that are ravaging Third World economies, eliminating jobs in the U.S. and chipping away at U.S. sovereignty and the power of the people....
How bad would McCain be?
I'll put it this way: Worse than Bush.
Are you ready for that?
I'm not.
All things being equal, I'd rather watch the Democrats destroy America for the next four years, holding out hope that a new kind of Republican leadership might arise to fight back in 2012.
I disagree with Coulter and Farah in one respect: the counterrevolution against Hillary will begin in 2010, not 2012. So that's just two years she'll have a free hand to wreck things.
The election of a socialist such as Senator Obama or Clinton...
John McCain is a socialist too. His agenda is identical to and interchangable with, Hillary's. As you have said before, he's a "Republican In Name Only." I say, if a Democrat is going to wreck our country, it might as well be a Democrat willing to carry the party banner, so that the voters can know who to blame, when everything melts down.
...will destroy what is left of this Nation.
Allen, I'm not being facetious here... but what exactly is LEFT of the Constitution? The income tax amendment? The "right to abort" penumbra? Frankly, your worries are a bit too late, and you should resolve to teach the GOP a lesson by refusing to drink their McCain flavor poisoned Kool Aid. At the risk of being exposed to some mild profanity, consider the wisdom of this song from the teevee show "South Park":
Let's get out and vote!
Let's make our voices heard.
We've been given the right to choose,
between a douche and a turd.
It’s democracy in action!
Put your freedom to the test.
A big fat turd or a stupid douche,
which do you like best?
The entire episode can be watched here:
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/808/Douche-and-Turd.html
(Note that "Puff Daddy" really did have a campaign on MTV called "Vote or Die," believe it or not!)
Absolutely wonderful dialogue going on here - Gives a body hope that there is a future!
Reminds me of Sodom & Gamora - the less than 10 good people left & the rest were toast - one looked back & turned to salt.
Can't imagine our education machine digesting that which it detests.
debait of division - assignment - read the first line of the official FTC ID Theft affidavit instruction sheet - (ftc idtheft)
"To make certain that you do not become reasponsible for any debts incurred by an identity thief, you must prove to each of the companies where the accounts were opened in your name that you didn't create the debt."
If you believe there is anything left of the Constitution, read their instructions & the affidavit form. Somebody ate the whole apple pie! "free" as in no value.
I can not argue that the choices for president are nothing bad in the worst ways. I dearly love Ann Coulter
and would vote for her in any race but in this situation I feel she is just wrong. The major problem I see with either Sen. Clinton or Obama is in the judges they would appoint. While McCain is very much in line with the other two candidates he has made a firm commitment to appoint only conservative judges to all federal courts including the Supreme Court.
For me the key is in the judges. As the saying goes presidents come and go but judges last forever. This country can survive a President McCain better than it can survive more activist judges. The Constitution has suffered its greatest attacks not from presidents but from judges.
I guess the bottom line is I love this country and with all its flaws and shortcomings I still believe it is the greatest country in the world. I have been to many other countries and nowhere compares. When you love something you can never hope for its destruction only for its good. Allen Barrett
A vote for McCain will nail the coffin shut. The US as we know it will disappear into a North American Union without our Constitution, language, or heritage. It will be run by globalists. As it stands, it doesn't matter which of the three is elected - it's in motion right now! He will kill conservatism. The others will resurect conservatism and nationalism by outrage of citizens who will not tolerate their crap.
The only hope is as stated by Mr. K - The people can and have made things happen through their house & senate leaders - certainly not via a rouge president. With Hillary, the bitter taste will be immediate and decisive enough to bring outrage by citizens. Obama will flat out get us killed & thus permanently destroy the nation.
McCain will permanently throw conservatism to the wolves. We'll have government anarchy run by global monopolists. The average young person will be like the Mexican standing on a corner waiting for a day labor job for a couple of bucks. Middle age & older will need a tin cup. Look at the globalist media spin they're putting on him!
VOTE FOR HIllary!!!
anonymous..
What did you think of hillary getting caught in that lie about her trip to Basra? If she will lie about that, who knows what else she will do. Can you remember Whitewatergate and other such gates. This woman is incredibly deceitful and, even worse, dangerous. Her mantra is situation ethics, and her ambition is power. Think.
A liar, an America hater, and a closet liberal and now waiting in the wings is the worst of the bunch algore not much to look forward to in November. Allen Barrett
1135 your comments speak favorably of the Hill-Billy ticket. What could be worse? Obama, Of course!!! McCain??? US of Mexico??? Of course! Hillary?? Of course again!!!!!
Of the incredibly bad, who is most obnoxious? Hillary, of course!
Who will the DC idiots be least likely to follow? Hillary, again. There is a good chance the DC idiots will not give her the match that burns America!
VOTE FOR HILLARY! Least likely to succeed in the global agenda to destroy America!
I have to agree with wab on this matter. "It's the judges stupid" that should be the mantra for everyone who loves this country. It was not an elected official that brought us abortions on demand, abortions to teen girls without parental involvement, revolving doors on jails, potential terrorist walking about freely, known terrorist unable to be interrogated, sexual perverts with special privileges, schools given authority over children above that of parents, etc, etc, etc.
With all his shortcomings John MaCain is the only possible hope to appoint judges that interpret the law not make new law based on world opinion.
Because "Mc" means "son of", the other side of the equation (Cain)tells us what we can expect.
If you haven't noticed over the past 8 years - anti trust laws no longer exist. Global monopolies have consolidated everything of significant value. They have also moved all of the stuff that makes things to off shore sanctuaries.
Wonder why petro prices are high? Supply & demand? Yep, controlled supply & demand turns into more money demanded - classic preidiot economics. Guess who will send you to jail for not feeding the parakeet & guess who tell you supply & demand works real good?
anonymous 10:32
I agree as well. We just can't afford to continue "boiling frogs" in this country. Liberalism with its liberal lawyers and judges has hurt our nation more than anything else. We just can't afford it any longer.
I'm not totally happy with McCain, but he is the best hope we have. We do not need higher taxes, bigger government, a surrender policy in Iraq, and business as usual with regard to the slaughter of unborn children and special rights for homosexuals.
I find it very interesting that a person running for president of the United States has managed to visit 57 fifty seven of those states and is looking forward to visiting the other two later on.
I would be most excited if Sen. Obama would please name those 57 states he claims to have visited. Allen Barrett
In his recent speech in Oregon Sen. Obama stated clearly that Europeans and other countries of the world should be considered before we drive our SUV's, eat to much and turn our thermostats to 72 degrees in winter or summer. For those of you who want change you're sure gonna get it if this globalist is elected. Allen Barrett
If you like $4.00 a gallon gas you're gonna love $5.00 a gallon gas.
In an interview on CNN Senator Obama stated "the problem with gas being $4.00 a gallon is that it got there to fast. In many ways there's good things about it being high it was just a shock to get there so quickly". This is from the man who last month supported a fifty cents a gallon federal tax increase on gas. If this globalist is elected not only will we never see most of or money again but most of those freedoms left will also be gone with the wind. Allen Barrett
There are so many reasons not to vote for obama (or democrats in general). They are the party of gay rights, killing of the unborn, intrusive government, more social programs that foster dependence rather than personal responsibility, and higher taxes. Why would anyone want to vote themselves a tax hike? I suspect many of those who would are the same ones who wouldn't vote for a wheel tax under any circumstances. Unbelievable!
Speaking of gas prices, it's the democrats who have stood in the way all along as far as drilling for oil, more nuclear plants, new refineries, and etc. Their idea of oil conservation and independence is to jack the prices up, which drives down consumption. That hurts the poor the worst. Aren't they the people democrats claim to love and care for? Democrats pander to them for their votes and keep them attached to the entitlement umbilical cord. That is shameful. Even more shameful is the fact that many democratic voters are not informed and educated as to how they are being duped for their votes.
Speaking of the Democrats' tired old mantra of taxing the wealthy, have they lost their minds? No, they know exactly what they are doing and have always counted on their voting block to be mentally lazy when it comes to checking things for themselves. Taxing the wealthy is nothing less than income redistribution. And they speak of fairness? Absurd!
Who really is paying the taxes in this country? Only a small percentage of this nation's wealthy pay over 40% of the taxes? Of course Democrats know this but keep beating that same old "unfairness" drum. Why? Because their constituency falls for it. They claim that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. THEY ALREADY ARE!
What happens should obama win the election and start sticking it to the so-called wealthy, many of whom are small business owners? Here's the answer. Those businesses will cut their losses by letting employees go. Why is that so hard to understand? I personally know of a situation like that. The businessowner already formulated a plan to deal with the situation should obama be elected. He said that he will cut his losses by letting two of his employees go. This will be happening all across the country should this income redistribution scheme be put into play. That's simple economics, isn't it?
Oh, I almost forgot. The obama camp accused McCain of flip-flopping on drilling off shore. No, it's an intelligent change of mind based on dire circumstances the Dems created to begin with. Here's an educated response to that lie. Just say that obama will also flip-flop on drilling when the price of a gallon of gas hits six dollars! That shuts them up fast.
In view of all these verifiable facts, let me close by asking one final question. Why would anyone vote for obama or any other democrat, knowing what they stand for? The absurdity of it all is when I see a bumper sticker that says: Had Enough?....vote Democrat.
Outrageous! You have to expend some mental energy to learn where these people are coming from and then have the intestinal fortitude to acept the truth when you see it.
Very accurate and well said 6:36.
I know I shouldn't do this, but I automatically start deducting IQ points when someone tells me he or she is a democrat. I say this kindly, but that is what first comes to mind, especially when I saw that person as informed, educated, and intelligent.
Since it is apparent that race rather than issues is going to be at the forefront of this election, I must respectfully ask a few questions to blacks. Why are you so devoted to the democratic party? That has amazed me for many years. What have they done for you, other than keep your people bound by chains of dependency? Was it not the party of Lincoln who did the right thing in setting the slaves free? Isn't democrat Robert K. Byrd a former member of the KKK? What about George Wallace? And the list goes on and on, and yet, you embrace their party because they keep telling you how much they care about you. Were I black, I would be greatly offended by their presumption that I did not have the intelligence to figure things out for myself. And that's exactly what they presume! Lastly, and perhaps saddest of all, it seems that anytime an African American leaves these people he or she is ridiculed and called an Uncle Tom. But guess who normally does the name-calling? I would be furious! Think.
Anonymous, July 10, 2008 6:36:00 PM, said:
There are so many reasons not to vote for obama (or democrats in general). They are the party of gay rights,
John Roberts -- the Bush appointed Chief Justice -- once did pro bono (ie, free) legal work for a gay rights group that was trying to use the courts to overturn a referendum which mandated "no special rights" for homosexuals. And if that ain't conservative, I don't know what is!
Here's the exact text of the constitutional amendment Roberts helped to strike down:
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing."
Why would a "conservative" -- much less a heterosexual male -- have a problem with that? I don't know, but one possibility, is that Roberts is himself a homosexual. The internet is awash with stories and innuendo, like this page:
http://tinyurl.com/8pyz6
Now, I don't have the facts, so I don't have an opinion on Roberts' "orientation." But shame on him, for whoring himself out to a "gay rights" group and participating in the evil act of overturning a perfectly good -- and democratically passed -- referendum. That act, alone, should've disqualified him from the Court.... so, a double helping of shame should be heaped on George W. Bush for nominating him!
killing of the unborn,
This is, of course, bad. But the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats. How? Well, just for starters, by not nominating the most pro-life candidate who has ever run, Ron Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered thousands of babies). Secondly, by refusing to back -- even when they had solid majorities in the House and Senate -- Ron Paul's bill to deny the federal courts any jurisdiction over abortion. This would've been equivalent to overturning Roe v Wade, but GOP leadership never supported Dr. Paul's bill. And that makes them sound like a bunch of phonies, if you ask me.
intrusive government,
Bush and the GOP shoved the USA-PATRIOT Act down our throats, and refused to even allow Congressmen to read it before having a vote. That's pretty darn intrusive, if you ask me!
more social programs that foster dependence rather than personal responsibility,
You mean like Bush's insane "free prescriptions for oldsters" that he shoved down Congress' throats, after "cooking the books" to paint a false picture of affordability?
How bad of an idea was this "greatest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ's Great Society?" Well, watch this presentation and see for yourself:
http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
and higher taxes.
Thanks to Bush's boundless stupidity, his token tax cuts are about to expire... meaning that the Dems can effectively raise taxes just by doing nothing. At any rate, given Bush's absurd spending spree (both domestically, and in his pointless foreign wars) tax hikes are virtually a sure thing, no matter which buffoon is elected this fall.
I could go on, but I trust my point has been made. Both parties are equally rotten. This should come as no surprise, to anyone who realizes that the GOP and Dems are nothing but sock puppets being manipulated by the same corporate "Big Money" interests. No matter which "party" wins, the same general policies are followed, and the American People always lose.
A plague on both their houses!
Post a Comment
<< Home