From http://dontvoteobama.net/: "Barack Obama on Rev. Jeremiah Wright: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." So Barack, since making the statement above, you HAVE disowned Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ and threw your white grandmother "under the bus", literally speaking! So our question to you is, have you also disowned the black community, or are you a liar! You can't have it both ways. Just come clean with the American people and run an honest campaign for "a change we can believe in"!"
President Obama Signs $8500.00 Per Household Tax Into Law: Funds To Go To The United Nations To Combat Global Poverty! From http://dontvoteobama.net "Make no mistake, the headline above is a lot closer to fact than you may think! So if you're wondering what an Obama presidency would be like, look no further than the above headline! What the media is NOT telling you is that Barack Hussein Obama does, in fact, have a legislative record in the Senate and one of his proudest accomplishments is The Global Poverty Act (S. 2433). But wait just a minute! Isn't combating poverty around the world a noble goal? Well... the devil, as they say, is in the details! Some conservative leaders are already sounding the alarm and telling us that, if passed, Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act will commit us to a stealth United Nations-inspired global tax of $845 Billion dollars... that comes to approximately an $8500.00 tax burden for every household in the United States! Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media wrote: "The legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which... would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.'" "The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require." Remember the Food for Oil Scandal? Let's face it; the United Nation's actual record on ending pain and suffering around the world is pathetic and dismal. The questions to ask are, first, how much of our money that goes to the United Nations right now actually winds up lining the pockets of third-world dictators and despots? And, second, if Obama's plan succeeds, how much of his new $845 billion giveaway will end up in those same pockets? ..."
Carter's Second Coming? From www.townhall.com: "Barack Obama may be the political equivalent of a rock star with his huge crowds and his celebrity endorsements, but his economic policies are simply the warmed over liberalism of the sixties and seventies. Stale liberalism doesnât have a history of success in America and doesnât match his image of Hope and Change. This same old big government tax and spend liberalism is a far cry from a âNew Politics.â So Obama has been forced into some creative marketing to sell his leftist ideology as post-partisan solutions to the countryâs problems. If you can cut through the hype and the rhetoric, his worldview is clear. Look at the way he talks about money. Tax cuts are âgiveawaysâ and âwasteful spending.â Forget for a moment whether specific tax cuts enhance revenue or stimulate the economy. Instead, remember that tax cuts are fundamentally different from government spending because the money isnât the governments to begin with. This captures the liberal view perfectly; the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. Wanting to keep your own money is selfish and wasteful. Obama even made the ludicrous claim that it is only with his nomination that America can began to heal the sick and find jobs for the jobless. It is only increased government spending that can solve problems and only Obama who can lead the way. Obama is counting on the fact that many Americans have a poor grasp of history. He is counting on the fact that high gas prices and a slowing economy might tempt them to return to a philosophy that has failed repeatedly in the past. Have we forgotten the legacy of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter? It was Lyndon Johnson who waged the War on Poverty and initiated âurban renewal.â These crusades resulted in a system of dependency and family dysfunction based on the warped incentives of government welfare; in rising crime rates and destroyed neighborhoods; in bloated government bureaucracies and higher taxes. Jimmy Carter brought this same attitude to Washington. His solution to Americaâs problems was more federal government control and spending. Is American education better off since Carter created the Department of Education? Is America more energy independent and secure since the creation of the Department of Energy? Did Carterâs policies jump start the US economy? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is no. The Carter administration was a time of long gas lines and rationing, stagflation and rising unemployment. A general malaise fell over the country. Facing this crisis Carter famously called on Americans to sacrifice in the name of energy conservation. Rejecting the dynamism and innovation of America, Carter proposed that we simply learn to live with less. Despite all of his charisma, Obama brings the same attitude. He too castigates Americans for selfishly driving the car they want or for using air conditioning too often. He too believes that the answer to our energy challenges is more federal spending. He too believes that domestic sources of energy must be off limits; that the desires of the environmental lobby trump our national interest and the pocketbooks of average Americans. He too opposes free trade and favors big unions over small businesses. Obamaâs record matches his attitude, if not always his seemingly centrist campaign rhetoric. Obama and his allies in Congress have tried to resuscitate the windfall profits tax strategy that failed during the Carter administration. In his first three years in the Senate Obama voted for increasing taxes 94 times (including taxes on coal, natural gas, payroll, and income). Obama talks at length about only raising taxes on the rich but he voted in favor of increasing the 25 percent federal tax rate to 28 percent (this bracket covers income from $32,550 to $78,850 for individuals and between $65,100 and $131,450 for married couples). And his plans to end the cap on Social Security taxes means an increase for anyone making more than $100,000. In order to get elected Obama is sure to campaign with centrist rhetoric. He will try to play on the weariness of voters tired of Washington. His fresh face and rhetorical skills will be used to convince voters he is different. In reality, Obama is a traditional liberal who favors more government and less freedom. These policies have been tried and failed. Dressing them up with fancier words and bigger crowds wonât change the outcome. Letâs hope voters remember their history."
Six Ways Obama Wants to Change America From http://www.townhall.com "What word does Barack Obama and his supporters keep chanting? "Change!" Like a drumbeat, Obama's chant for change runs nonstop in an endless loop. But how does Obama want to change America if he becomes president? Here are six different areas he would like changed. For starters, Obama received a 100 percent rating from NARAL (a pro-abortion group) in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Why do they hold him in such high esteem? Because he supports every pro-abortion bill that comes along. He wants tax dollars for abortions, he voted against notifying parents of minors about abortions, he supports partial-birth abortion, and he would withhold life-saving measures from babies born after botched abortions. Obama wants no limits on abortion, ever, but he is completely out of step with the majority of Americans. For example, seven out of 10 are against partial-birth abortion -- which is a brutal procedure in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which babies are pulled feet-first from the womb, stabbed through the skull with a scissor-like instrument and their brains are sucked out via a strong suction tube. Afterwards the dead baby's collapsed head is removed from the mother. As ugly as it is, and as it sounds, in Obama's America it would be routinely done all the way up to the time of birth. Secondly, Obama is glaringly weak on national security. He advocates negotiating with terrorists. One week after he told AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, that Jerusalem "must remain undivided," he backpedaled, did a shameless about-face, and now declares that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future talks. Obama naively wants to pull our troops out of Iraq without first ensuring stability in the area, which will put all of America at risk. It has been less than four years since he became the junior senator from Illinois. Guess which foreign leaders have expressed their desire for him to win? Communist Fidel Castro recently called Obama, "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency," while an advisor from the terrorist group Hamas told WorldNetDaily, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." Third, Obama will dramatically raise taxes. In response to Bush's 2008 State of the Union address, Obama said he is against tax cuts for Americans. "We heard the president say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them." Prior to clinching the nomination he proposed what he would do with your money: "And the Bush tax cuts -- people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that is why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives." This leads to change number four, socialized medicine. "Well, look, I believe in universal health care," Obama said at a presidential debate last February. "Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it." Obama likes to call it "universal health care" because it sounds more palatable than what it is: socialized medicine. Change number five is education. His far-left voting record voices his beliefs about education. In 2003, he cast his vote in Illinois to allow "age appropriate" sex education to be taught in elementary school. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also supported this legislation. In Illinois, Obama also supported "free" taxpayer funded college tuition for students as long as they maintained a "B" average. This sounds nice, but where does the money come from? You, of course, with higher taxes. Finally, change number six is an end to free trade. USA Today wrote about Obama's plans: "Modifying or scrapping NAFTA wouldn't create jobs or more skilled workers. The idea raises false hope and seeks to scapegoat Mexico and Canada." The possibility of a President Obama is making Wall Street nervous and the stock market reflects it. Remember, a favorite word liberals use to describe themselves is "progressive," and this means change. Every time you hear the roar "change," remember that this chant translates into elitist, left-wing, socialized change -- change for which you will dearly pay."
Obama's Plan for Defeat By Charles Krauthammer "WASHINGTON -- In his St. Paul victory speech, Barack Obama pledged again to pull out of Iraq. Rather than "continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians. ... It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future." We know Obama hasn't been to Iraq in more than two years, but does he not read the papers? Does he not know anything about developments on the ground? Here is the "nothing" that Iraqis have been doing in the last few months: 1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias. 2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town -- Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah -- from Basra to Baghdad. 3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold. 4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces. 5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation. 6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks -- a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget. 7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.) The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed. It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq War the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war. But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success. The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory. McCain's case is not hard to make. Iraq is a three-front war -- against Sunni al-Qaeda, against Shiite militias and against Iranian hegemony -- and we are winning on every front: -- We did not go into Iraq to fight al-Qaeda. The war had other purposes. But al-Qaeda chose to turn it into the central front in its war against America. That choice turned into an al-Qaeda fiasco: al-Qaeda in Iraq is now on the run and in the midst of stunning and humiliating defeat. -- As for the Shiite extremists, the Mahdi Army is isolated and at its weakest point in years. -- Its sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy. Even the most expansive American objective -- establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite -- is within sight. Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be. Give the speech, senator. Give it now. "
Naw. The anti-Christ is man...any age, any race, any gender. Christ is reality. Man has reality-like appeal. Christ is everything. Man destroys everything. Man is promising to "fix" things. His technology is promising. His candidates are promising. The "religion of peace" is promising. A police state is promising. Human language is persuasive. But actually, it was invented to block communication, and so block Christ's power to create. Jesus
Thank You. You still get the idea though. Also, most shoplifters tend to be middle class white women, as well as the leading consumer of antidepressants, therefore, white women are depressed theives, and should be banned from retail outlets.