October 2008


Before I begin, I want to be up front about the fact that I did not come up with this comparison on my own, but I want to try to share it with you in my own words.

First, a few questions:

  1. Do you believe that slavery is OK?
  2. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that slavery was OK, whether or not he or she could actually bring it back as a source of labor in this country, if that candidate also proposed and could provide  an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  3. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that certain other people would have to become slaves?
  4. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
  5. Do you believe that abortion is OK?
  6. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that abortion was OK, knowing that he or she could definitely eliminate all restrictions on abortions, if that candidate also proposed and could provide an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  7. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that even more babies were going to be exposed to abortion procedures, including now-forbidden partial birth abortions?

Now, I don’t know for sure how you answered these questions, but my guess is that MOST people would absolutely be appalled at the idea of any candidate who approves of slavery and would want to bring it back.  Well, there are plenty of people out there (and you might be one of them) who believe that abortion is wrong but are willing to vote for a candidate proposing to overturn all restrictions on abortion because they have decided they will not be one-issue voters.  They generally approve of his stance on the other issues and are willing to overlook the abortion issue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, there can be no greater issue for you.  We are talking about human life here … more specifically, the termination of human life on a grand scale.  Murder, to put it more bluntly.  At least that’s what it is if you really believe life begins at conception.

I used to be one of those voters who decided that if the abortion issue was the only problem I had with a candidate, maybe I wasn’t being fair by not considering all of the other issues at hand in the election.

I can’t view it like that any longer.  I could never approve of slavery, and I, most certainly, could never approve of abortion.  And Barack Obama has said that the very first thing he’ll do upon taking office is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  This would effectively remove all restrictions on abortions … even the graphically violent partial-birth abortions.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I think Obama’s ideas on the rest of the issues are correct.  I don’t think they are, and I think he is wrong on just about everything.  But I know many of you do believe he is right on many things.  That is fair.  But I REALLY want you to consider this ONE issue—the issue of life—and I want you to consider whether you can vote for a person whose moral conscience does not tell him that abortion is wrong … that the taking of a human life is wrong.

Please.  Consider it.

Advertisements

If Obama’s grandmother is truly ill, then I wish her the very best, but does anyone else think that maybe it isn’t a coincidence that immediately after or during Obama’s trip to visit his ill grandmother, his birth certificate was officially sealed from all access by the governor of Hawaii?

This news comes at the same time that we find out that Obama’s paternal grandmother has actually stated that she witnessed his birth in Kenya and the dismissal of Philip Berg’s lawsuit over Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of United States, despite the fact that he has raised many troubling questions, none of which have been sufficiently answered by the Obama campaign.

He was in Hawaii already.  He could have picked up a copy of the birth certificate while he was there, but, instead, the birth certificate was sealed.  If his natural-born U.S. citizenship is a guaranteed fact, why would he not just produce the document?  And even if he does not want to produce the document, why would he go to such lengths to make sure that nobody else could possibly review it?  The judge dismissed Berg’s case on the grounds that “ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.”  I, personally, as a U.S. citizen, find that insulting.  So are senators above the law, or is it just because he is a presidential candidate that Obama is apparently above the law?  Do “ordinary citizens” not have a valid interest in the eligibility of those running to be the president?

Still, the article that talks about Obama’s birth certificate being sealed does provide one valuable nugget of information.  It states (emphasis added by me):

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or “registrant” according to the legal description from the governor’s office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

Hmm…don’t we know of a couple of people who might share a common ancestor with Obama and, yet, not have any interest in his assumption of the role of President of the United States?

Perhaps, we should ask one or both of these distant relatives to step forward and obtain the document that none of the rest of us have the right to see.

Supporters of Barack Obama and even the Obama campaign like to keep pointing out that Barack Obama is the next John F. Kennedy.  Is it because of the youth factor?  The promise of hope?  It certainly isn’t about policy.  Check it out:

JFK, on what needs to be done to rebuild the economy in a time of recession:

And now, Barack Obama, on how to run the economy:

If you’re interested in the full clip of Obama’s talk with “Joe the Plumber,” that can be found here.  This is where he talks about raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year so that the economy can be built from the bottom-up.  JFK would not have agreed with this policy.

For good measure, here is a video of Congressman Barney Frank, living up to his name and speaking VERY frankly, to give you more of an idea of what the Democrats, with full control of the Senate and the House, would like to do and would be able to do with Barack Obama in the White House:

Getting the picture?

So, if the ideas of Obama and the rest of the fiscal liberals in Congress don’t match the policies of JFK, whose ideas do they match?

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. ” – Karl Marx

Barbara West, of one of my hometown local TV stations (WFTV) in Central Florida, asks Biden the questions that he and Obama SHOULD be getting asked!  This is what the rest of the mainstream media is willfully ignoring!  I think I have a new hero.  Check it out:

I just want to share an excerpt from Neal Boortz’s treatise, To the Undecided Voter:

There’s a quote that’s been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy’s name was Tytler. Let’s not argue spelling right now … let’s just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Think about this, my friends. Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing right now? In fact, hasn’t this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he’s only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn’t take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don’t need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That’s change you can believe in.

Can’t you see that the end is in sight and that there is no light at the end of this tunnel? A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to end the democratic republic as we’ve always known it and, perhaps, to end it completely.

I know that I’ve said for awhile that I could not decide how I was going to cast my vote.  I’ve known for awhile that I could not cast my vote for Barack Obama because he and I disagree on almost everything regarding how this country should be run, but I could not decide between casting my vote for John McCain or a third-party candidate.  Well, I’ve decided now that despite the fact that McCain won’t necessarily turn our country around but, at the very least, won’t make it worse, I must vote for him instead of for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates.  I do not feel I am just being a fear-monger or an alarmist when I say I believe that the prospect of an Obama presidency presents our country with, perhaps, the greatest danger it has ever faced.  If we can hold him off, we may have a chance in four years to put someone in office who can truly change the direction of this nation to more closely match the vision of our Founding Fathers, but if we cannot hold him off, then I fear we may never again have this chance.

So I urge you now, please read these articles and commentaries.  Most of them are really short.  The one by Neal Boortz is really long, but it is DEFINITELY worth reading.  And, now, without further ado, the articles and commentaries:

Check it out: ‘Aye’ And Mighty: Bloomberg’s Wish Is Granted

The City Council of New York City voted today, by a margin of 29-22, to allow city officeholders three consecutive four-year terms in office.  This vote applied to them as well, and I think it is very telling that two-thirds of the members on the Council are currently in their second terms.  This is completely outrageous and needs to be reviewed in the court system.  There is no way a vote like this should be allowed to be made by those already in office.  The people must be allowed to decide how long officials will  be allowed to represent them, and the people of NYC need to stand up and fight this with everything they’ve got.

How long will it be before the U.S. Congress decides that the president no longer has to be limited to two four-year terms?  My guess?  Only until Barack Obama wins the presidency and the potentially supermajority Democratic Congess decides they just want to leave him in there awhile.  Now, maybe I’m being a little paranoid, but if those in power can decide these things for themselves, why should the people matter?  Let’s just let the rulers decide how long they are going to serve us.  We can abolish the whole inconvenient and flimsy process of voting altogether.  Isn’t it starting to feel like we might as well do that anyway?

Josef Stalin once said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything.”

I feel like that is quickly becoming the reality of our nation.  It won’t keep me from voting, but with the incredible lack of safeguards for the whole process, I sure don’t feel confident that my vote actually counts anymore.

Next Page »

  • RSS Bible Gateway Verse of the Day

    • Galatians 4:4-5
      “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.”
  • October 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • $700 billion 2008 election abortion antwaan randle el back pain bailout barack obama belmont belmont university bengals biden bush christian cincinnati congress conservative conservatives constitution party debate democrat democratic party Democrats election election '08 fantasy football football funny george bush homeless house jennifer brunner jesus joe biden john mccain karl marx liberal liberalism liberals marx mccain murder nashville neck pain news obama ohio pain palin paul politics president president bush radical republican republicans ron paul sarah palin second presidential debate secretary of state senate senators shoulder pain socialism socialist socialists spread the wealth state fair steve slaton stock market subprime mortgages supreme court tennessee third party candidates titans voter fraud
  • Recent Comments

    Levitigus on Do you approve of slavery? Wou…
    vino blanco on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Maura on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Tim on My thoughts after election…
    meggo on My thoughts after election…
  • Blog Stats

    • 8,177 hits
  • Meta