Barack Obama President During World War II?

Author: truthforamerica@hotmail.com

On December 7th, 1941, Japanese fighter planes launched a bombing attack on the U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor. This act shocked and horrified the nation as people saw the horrible images broadcasted on the news. President Barack Obama was quickly notified while playing golf with the former union boss Andy Stearn of the Services Employees International Union. One of his top national security advisors was on the ski slopes at the time but he went ahead and finished his vacation before heading to Washington, D.C. Prominent figures such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately speculated that the attacks were motivated by Japanese pilots who were unhappy with their nation’s government run health care plan or dissatisfied with their government. After recovering from the initial shock, Americans became angry that so many innocent lives were lost and that their homeland had been attacked. They looked to their President for the next move and all wanted to be assured that this horrible injustice would not go unpunished. President Obama quickly called together a summit of his top Cabinet officials, union leaders, liberal activists, and trial lawyers to discuss this dire situation. They were broken up into small groups and different ideas were formulated on how to deal with the situation. After the 3 hour summit was over, Obama gathered the suggestions and deliberated for 14 days to make a decision. He also conferred with liberal blogs such as the Daily Kos and Moveon.org. All the TV networks were instructed to carry his address to the nation immediately after American Idol so that the majority of Americans would be more likely to hear his speech. A new state of the art teleprompter was flown in by a F16 jet to Washington, D.C. because Vice President Biden had broken the official one while on a speaking engagement in Colorado. The night came that everyone was to hear the leader of the free world speak and these were his words:

“My fellow Americans, two weeks ago a group of Japanese extremists launched an attack against Pearl Harbor. Due to the inaction of the previous administration in not setting up the proper defenses there, I inherited this unfortunate situation. This was a despicable act and I condemn it. I have issued an Executive Order instructing my Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to immediately add Japanese fighter pilots to our National Security Threat List along with right wing extremists, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharma, CEO’s, talk radio, Fox News, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Tea Party organizers. While this attack was despicable, it does not reflect the entire nation of Japan and we do not need to condemn the whole nation for the action of a few. Most of the pilots flew away, but we were able to capture several prisoners and we have read them their Miranda rights. After we learned that three of our Navy Seals became violent with one of the prisoners by bloodying his lip, we immediately began court martial proceedings against them. In addition, we are investigating the interrogation practices of the previous administration and its lawyers. We will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. My Attorney General, Eric Holder, has a lot of experience to conduct these prosecutions. His background uniquely qualifies him for this task as head of the Justice Department. He formerly worked for the prestigious law firm Covington & Burling, which represented many such extremists. This will help us to make sure that these Japanese prisoners are given all their rights under the U.S. Constitution. They have been assigned the top ACLU lawyers in the nation and a trial will be held in the U.S District Court in Pearl Harbor two years from now. We are restricting the cost of these proceedings not to exceed $200 million dollars. First, we need to focus on what we did as a nation to provoke this attack. We need to understand what made these extremists upset at us. In the ensuing weeks, I will instruct the media to air documentaries about the lives of the extremists and their motivation for initiating these attacks. They obviously came from an underprivileged class. Most likely they were foreclosed on or tricked into a mortgage they didn’t understand. We will get approval from the United Nations to conduct a military action in Japan to locate other extremist Japanese fighter pilots that may be in hiding. I have already put our naval fleet on top alert to be ready for this troop occupation in Japan and this fleet will be led by the newly christened destroyer U.S.S. Saul Alinsky. This special Navy ship was named after a man who is one of my heroes and also the author of a great book that has greatly influenced my life—Rules for Radicals. Although Japan has joined an Axis of Evil with Germany and Italy, we must not get sidetracked getting entangled with the question of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler has no weapons of mass destruction and has not attacked us directly. We will conduct diplomatic talks with him. This will be the most effective way to confront the Nazi threat. Unfortunately, we were unable to stop him from invading Poland due to my order to dismantle our missile defense system there. At this time, we will work with our nation’s allies to stop the evil threat with the exception of Israel. They have launched raids against Hamas sympathizers in seeming self-defense without U.N. approval. That country has also chosen the inflammatory decision of building more apartment buildings in the city of Jerusalem. It’s not fair to the surrounding Arab nations for Israel to be building on its own land. We will seek help from U.N. nations as Israel cannot be relied on at this time. I have appointed Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, and Sean Penn as our goodwill ambassadors to the U.N. I will also visit the countries of potential allies and bow to their leaders if that will help to mobilize support. To finance this operation, we will issue war bonds which people making over $250,000 a year will be required to purchase. Wall Street firms will be required to loan money to the U.S. Treasury. If they don’t comply, I will instruct Senator Chris Dodd to write another financial regulation bill to take more of their profits. We will make additional cuts as needed to the NASA program and the overall defense budget. It is crucial during these trying times that we ramp up our entitlement spending so that the working class is not forgotten.
To prepare for this troop occupation, we will need to mobilize our manufacturing sector to produce the needed military equipment. These factories will employ members of the SEIU, ACORN, and Organizing for America. We will award no bid contracts to select unions to ensure that we are using the best options for production. The SEIU has already been chosen to be the exclusive contractor for all support personnel. We will limit the CEO pay of weapons manufacturers since they will be making windfall profits on increased military demand. We will send our best and most well-trained troops to undertake this mission. As with my philosophy of financial reform, I do not want our soldiers to engage in risky behavior. We have just added a new medal to be awarded to combat troops called the Courageous Medal of Restraint. It will also be awarded posthumously as situations demand it. We are also re-writing the Rules of Engagement to make sure they are aligned with U.N. and Code Pink guidelines. As I proposed early in my presidency, we will require health insurance companies to cover all combat related injuries of our wounded soldiers. I have carefully considered who to assign as Supreme Commander of this operation. As I did with my Supreme Court nominees, I did not select someone based on their qualifications alone for the job. I looked to see if their philosophy aligned with mine and if that person has real life experience. Someone who is down with the struggle. I can think of no better person than Bertha Lewis, the former CEO of ACORN. She has extensive experience in community organizing like myself and the background of running an extremely ethical organization. I have appointed my friend Bill Ayers to be in charge of all military bomb making departments as he has extensive experience trying to blow up various American landmarks. Al Sharpton will be appointed as my Direction of Race Relations. To accomplish our national security interests while meeting the imminent threat of global warming, I will consult Al Gore about the environmental impact that this military action may have. We have retro-fitted our battleships with wind turbines and solar panels for maximum efficiency. This will help to achieve our independence from fossil fuels. We will loan Brazil money so that they can drill for oil and this will help us further our green initiatives. We will discard our Humvees and replace them with GM hybrid all terrain SUV’s. I have appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission that will report to me at the end of this year on our progress.
Let me be clear, we need to reform war. It has been far too long business as usual and our military has been corrupted by the special interest groups who believe in American superiority. We will set a specific timeline so that our enemies know what to expect and withdraw our troops in 18 months. We will also build a prisoner detention facility in Illinois at the request of Senator Dick Durbin. He has informed me that this is a wonderful way to create jobs and this will help highlight my laser-like focus on job creation. We will do this and ensure that these attackers can be guaranteed of their civil rights. We have released the number of bombs in our arsenal to encourage nations like Nazi Germany to reduce their military stockpiles. Whether we like it or not, we are a military superpower. Our goal is to become more aligned with other countries as citizens of the world and reduce our military superpower status. As I said in a recent speech at West Point, we are creating a different kind of military now. It will be more in line with international interests. It will function in similar ways to the Peace Corpse (official Obama pronunciation). As I said early in my campaign, we will also create a civilian force just as powerful as the military. In spite of the need for increased national security, we will not allow any profiling of Japanese, Italian, or Germans coming over our borders without proper paperwork. We are not a nation defined by its borders. At this sober time during my historic presidency, we must pause for a time of reflection. I do not think it is appropriate to observe a National Day of Prayer. In response to Muslim criticism, I have disinvited Shirley Dobson from leading the traditional observance in the White House and Franklin Graham from leading in prayer at the Pentagon. Instead, I have set up a religious coalition to be led by my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and prominent American Muslim leaders. To make sure that the war press coverage is fair, I have instructed my Information Czar, Cass Sunstein to monitor the flow of information. He believes as I do that certain news sources such as talk radio and internet sites do not portray the accurate coverage that is found in more reliable networks like MSNBC. We will encourage voluntary action but may require forced compliance. As my counter terrorism advisor John Brennan recently said, I agree that the right wing is aiding and abetting the enemy by opposing my administration’s efforts so we will do what is needed to silence those loud voices.
As my wife Michelle so eloquently said, we as a couple feel for the first time really proud of this country ever since I became the President. As I once told Harry Reid, I have a gift. I am the one we’ve been waiting for. I want to fundamentally transform this country and we can change it together. Thank you, and I bless America.”

In the following months, the military action did not go as smoothly as planned. The public became more disillusioned and dissatisfied with our progress. As soon as public sentiment began to change, politicians quickly saw that attacking the military could be a boost to their re-election campaigns. Prominent Democrat politicians began to publicly undermine the military’s efforts. Pete Stark exclaimed that the President sent kids off the war to get their heads blown off for his own amusement. Dick Durbin compared CIA interrogators to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, and Paul Pott. Hillary Clinton all but called the commanding general a liar by telling him during his Congressional testimony that what he said would “require a willing suspension of disbelief.” James Clyburn said that military success could be bad for the Democrat Party. Russ Feingold said the troops were dying for no good reason. John Kerry told a group of soldiers that if they aren’t well educated, they would get stuck fighting in Japan. He also said that soldiers were terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night. A newcomer and young senator from Illinois said that the military was just air raiding villages and killing civilians. Chuck Schumer said that any military success would happen in spite of military surges in forces. John Murtha called U.S. Marines murderers. Harry Reid declared the war lost. The New York Times gladly published intelligence information that was highly classified. CBS News published reports about planned military strategy in advance. These statements reflected a growing disdain of the U.S. military and increased sympathy towards other countries that disliked the United States. Targeted bombing missions over Japan had limited success as there were no fueling locations between Hawaii and Japan for long range flights. It was proposed to capture the island of Iwo Jima, but Lisa Jackson of the EPA and environmental extremists felt that an invasion of the island would disrupt the ecological balance on the beaches. The idea was quickly scrapped. As the years went on, the military continued to conduct missions but extremists surfaced all over the world and not just in Japan. Kamikaze pilots flew their planes into ships and buildings, killing Americans and causing massive damage. These attacks consistently were caused by extremists from Japan, but political correctness prevented profiling at airports and other security checkpoints. Not all Japanese people were extremists, but all the kamikaze attackers were Japanese. Advocacy groups such as CAJR—Council of American Japanese Relations constantly filed lawsuits and kept up political heat to prevent any potential profiling. Grandmothers and disabled children were pulled out of lines to be searched to present the mirage of fairness. Counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan asserted that kamikaze was a wonderful and legitimate struggle, but extremists had perverted the ideology and were using it to kill others through new attack methods. It was suggested to drop a newly developed atomic bomb on either Japan or Germany to end the hostilities, but this idea was quickly vetoed by Obama as too many civilians would perish. Meanwhile, Adolph Hitler killed millions of Jews and opponents to his new Nazi government. He continued to invade smaller countries and plant the Nazi flag in the capitols to show Nazi control. The stance of the administration was to continue to conduct talks with these dictators because an aggressive diplomacy campaign was the ultimate objective. Many in Congress pushed to pas legislative economic sanctions against the finance capitol of Iran, Germany. However, the Obama administration would not support it. Because of this passive mentality, evil flourished. The situation was a disastrous quagmire and a new President was elected at the end of Obama’s term. The newly elected President Ronald Reagan gave new hope to Americans. After being sworn in, he immediately gave military commanders authority to launch a concerted attack against Japan and Germany. The Air Force dropped massive bombs on Tokyo and Japan quickly surrendered. American ground forces rumbled across Germany and invaded Berlin. Adolph Hitler was captured and immediately hung in the public square. Independence from Nazi rule was granted to the invaded countries of Britain, France, and Poland. Russia under Joseph Stalin saw the power of the United States and kept to itself. The new foreign policy of peace through strength showed the world that America loves peace, but wouldn’t accept it at any price.

America is a beacon of freedom for the world. Joe Biden said recently that Brussels had as much of a claim on the term “capitol of the free world” as we do. This is ludicrous. America has liberated and protected many countries around the world while shedding the blood of patriots to defend liberty both here at home and abroad. All we asked in return was enough land to bury the fallen. Robert E. Lee once said, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.” We don’t like war, but we are America. If you attack us, you should pay dearly. It doesn’t matter if the attacker is a country or an ideology. Currently, we are in a war against Islamic terrorism. As long as we seek to detach those two words, we will always struggle to prevail. Until we identify the enemy, we can’t win the war. If we give credence to dictators such as Hugo Chavez while snubbing Israel, once could question if America still stands for the principles that made this country great. Alexis de Tocqueville said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” America doesn’t need fundamental transformation, it needs revitalization. We must return to the founding principles which made this country great. A return to freedom and a love for the rugged individuality that made this country so wonderful. A desire for freedom from collectivism and government dependence. A respect for the Judeo-Christian principles which guided our founding fathers as they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A nation founded under God. Samuel Adams said, “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” Freedom requires the voices of patriots who love their country and are willing to stand up for liberty. Until then, and may we hope to remain, the freest nation on Earth—The United States of America.


Author: truthforamerica@hotmail.com

Barack Obama Exposed

"If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough the people will believe it!” exclaimed Adolph Hitler over 50 years ago. Barack Obama has run a presidential campaign that is based on two words: hope and change. When you ask the average Obama supporter what his accomplishments are or what he would change America to, you will most likely get a blank stare in return. The fact is that most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama but get starry eyed because he has achieved celebrity status in America. He has used soaring rhetoric and empty promises to dupe the American people into believing that he is something that he isn’t. Obama is a radical leftist and could be easily called a Marxist because of his extreme ideology. He espouses socialist views that would drastically take this country to the left. Watch any interview of speeches that he gives and the solution that he gives for every problem is more government. Most people welcome this because they don’t want to be personally responsible for their lives anyway. They would rather hand over their freedoms one by one to an even larger government. They don’t realize that the government that is large enough to give them everything is also large enough to take everything away. You have heard the rumors and speculation surrounding just who Obama is. In this thoroughly researched article, I would like to consolidate the facts into a point by point analysis that will give you a much clearer picture of what a disaster Barack the Radical would be for this country.

1. Obama supports infanticide. Late-term abortions are designed to prevent a baby from living outside of a mother’s womb. Most would define a baby who survives an abortion as a human being with a right to live. While Obama was a state senator, an Illinois nurse named Jill Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee. She related an experience where she found an abandoned Down Syndrome baby who was an abortion survivor in a soiled utility room. She held him for the 45 minutes that he lived while barely clinging to life. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html Her stunning story can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhsTCySy734 Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against the bill that would have recognized these abortion survivors as human beings. Rather than stick to his position which would have probably been unpopular, he decided to vote “Present” as he would later do over 100 times on multiple issues. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf Pg 86-87 He voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. On March 29, 2008, commented on his two daughters. “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo His opposition to the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have recognized abortion survivors as human beings, highlights what a radical abortion stance he really holds. John McCain has been emphatic that life begins at conception. Obama says that to answer that question would be above his pay grade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mem_xEcZHVY An emerging spokeswoman for the Born Alive Act has been featured in a new ad that is very sobering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s Gianna Jessen tells her story of surviving an abortion and promotes the Born Alive information here: http://bornalivetruth.org/ Is it fair to ask the question, “If the down syndrome child that was born to Sarah Palin had been born to the Obamas, would that child still be alive?” Maybe this is also why he supported sex education for kindergarteners. But wait, his campaign clarified that is should be “age appropriate.” http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/19/obamas-great-idea-sex-ed-for-kindergarteners/

2. Is Obama a Muslim? No one can prove this definitely. The reason that some people question this is because he has had some facts spring up that cause people to wonder. An American expatriate in Southeast Asia points out that Obama had his religion listed as Islam when enrolling in school in Jakarta. http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/tracking-down-obama-in-indonesia-part-3.html In his book Obama Nation, Dr. Jerome Corsi highlights something that Obama said himself. “Out of the blue, Obama clearly states, “In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic School…….In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.” (Corsi, Page 52) There was an extensive article in the LA Times that listed assertions from Obama’s childhood classmates that he was a Muslim. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation. “On July 9,2006, the Jakarta daily Banjarmasin Post published an interview with Rony Amir, a classmate of Barry Soetoro’s at the Franciscan Assisi Primary School……Amir recalled Obama’s enjoying football and marbles, as well as being a Muslim. “We often asked Barry to the prayer room close to the house, when he lived in Street H Ramli, in the Menteng Dalam area of Jakarta”…..Amir speculated that Obama had to change his religion if he planned to run for the president of the United States, because America would never elect a Muslim president.” (Corsi, 58-59) Other childhood friends insist that he was a Muslim. http://laotze.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-hoisted-on-his-own-petard-one.html “In introducing Reverend Wright in Dreams from My Father, Obama says in passing that Wright had dabbled with liquor, Islam, and black nationalism in the 1960s. In the version of his sermon “Audacity to Hope,” from which Obama got the tile of his second book, Wright himself admits he was a Black Muslim for a time. “I was influenced by Martin King, yes, but there was this other guy named Malcolm, and I tried one brief time being a Muslim: As salaam alaikum, {Peace be with you},” Wright said in the sermon, “Anything but Christian.” If we wanted proof that Wright was ever a Black Muslim, this sermon gives us proof in Wright’s own words. One wonders if Obama did not recognize himself in the reverend and his experiences, including Islam.” (Corsi, 187) His father was a Kenyan Muslim. His stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim. Half-brother Obango is a Muslim. He came under additional scrutiny when he let slip “his Muslim faith.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAJQyMrb9is&feature=related

3. Obama recently did an almost treasonous action. He went to Iraq and tried to seek a deal with the Iraqi foreign minister to stall the withdrawal of American troops until after “he becomes President to take credit for it.” This is an act bordering on treason. He went behind the back of an acting President and American generals on the ground. The media has been very quiet on this story although it has been confirmed. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm He literally violated U.S. law and undermined the diplomatic process that we have. The Logan Act prohibits an unauthorized citizen to negotiate with foreign governments under potential felony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act The Obama campaign took over five hours to respond to this story because it is so potentially explosive. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13897 Rush Limbaugh also weighed in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IAOJ41bbF8

4. Taxes. Obama has continually changed his agenda on taxes. He touts a plan that would only raise taxes on people who earn over $250,000. Most people hear this and get very excited. People may take a second look though when they find out they are being taxed out of their other pocket. Obama’s tax plan can be based on one of the points from the Communist Manifesto. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. He believes that the police power of the government should be used to levy massive tax loads on those who are successful. In effect, income redistribution. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html You will always have the people who participate in class warfare believing that the rich should be punished for being wealthy. They of course could not have possibly earned their money legitimately so take their money and give it to those who didn’t earn it. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-percent-federal-2077390-taxes-tiger Obama said in his acceptance speech that he would cut capital gain taxes on small businesses. People cheered and admired his sympathy for small business owners. But was he economically ignorant as he is on other issues? Small businesses do not pay capital gains taxes anyway! http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/04/barak-obama-taxes-tech-enter-cx_sm_0905obama.html Rather, Obama wants to heavily tax people who would most likely invest in new start up businesses. Make no mistake about it. When wealthy people are taxed too much, they simply take their money out of the capital market and find more tax friendly vehicles to put it in. America is in desperate need of capital. With big banks failing, many large companies are turning to foreign countries because many organizations have large amounts of money to infuse into the U.S. Raising capital gains taxes on individuals is very dangerous to a slowing economy. Obama has had shifting positions on the issue saying that he would raise to anywhere from 20% to 28%. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LNqBS5OyqM Charles Gibson asked Obama at a presidential debate the question of capital gains taxes increases. Even though every time capital gains taxes have been raised and government revenue went down, Obama insisted that he wanted to do it for the sake of “fairness.” This would be in line with his socialist view of income redistribution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8 It has been proven that when capital gains taxes are raised, government revenue goes down. http://townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/04/17/obama_at_a_big_loss_over_capital_gains So what does this mean to you? If you have money in retirement plans that utilize the stock market, then you would be directly hit. Let’s say that you have $500,000 gain at retirement, instead of paying $75,000, under Obama the price tag of 28% would have you pay $140,000. It would be at that point you would realize that the “tax the rich” mantra is pure propaganda. He voted against repealing the Death Tax also. Many of his followers get excited when he talks about closing corporate tax loopholes and making them also pay more. Corporations don’t pay taxes. They simply embed those costs in the price that you pay for the service or item that they are selling. It would do everyone good to look at who actually pays taxes in America. The bottom 50% of income earners pay about 3% of the income tax bill. Obama thinks that the 1% of income earners that pay 40% of the total tax bill should be taxed much more heavily. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 So who will lay off people and quit investing when this happens? In summary, if you work hard and become very wealthy, you are part of the “evil rich” that must be punished. Your money should be redistributed to those who have not earned it. http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=a0b47e3f-db96-4356-863c-f2149cefb6c1 Many people incorrectly believe that those who earn over $250,000 are the ones that are really wealthy. Many small business owners easily earn this much in revenue when they have multiple employees. The same people that Obama is claiming to help he will hurt the most. Joe Biden also joined in by saying that paying higher taxes is patriotic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDD08sDKPgI

5. Long standing association with Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn—the unrepentant terrorists who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Headquarters in the 1970’s. Ayers was a member of the radical Weather Underground that engaged in domestic terrorism against the United States. Obama felt it was necessary to knock on his door in Chicago to get the political clout that he needed for the city’s political machine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY Ayers said in the September 11, 2001 issue of the New York Times that he regretted that he didn’t do more terrorist acts in the United States. Just read this article for more and to view the photo of him stomping on the American Flag. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I Obama served on the Woods Fund Board in Chicago with this man and gave multiple speeches with him. Ayers served as the pathway for Obama to gain political notoriety. http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/04/17/airing_the_ayers-obama_connection Ayers to this day utters anti-American views that are utterly despicable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YrDwYNEyw8 Obama’s clear ties to Ayers should be cause for alarm to any concerned citizen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g You can watch a more detailed video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_ayers_ties_are_relevant.html

6. His philosophy of income redistribution. This was touched on earlier but it is interesting to see that Obama disregards the fact that higher taxes results in lower government revenue. He would rather carry out redistribution to achieve “fairness” in his perfect utopia America where everyone would be more equal. In his recent interview with Bill O’Reilly, he outlines this flawed way of thinking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XW7tkN-_GM

7. Plan to cut defense and military spending. Instead of looking for ways to lower entitlement spending, he would rather cut down our nuclear and defense capabilities. In a time of increased importance of national security, he is worried about cutting money out of the military. Yet another reason Americans would not be safe under an Obama administration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE While he was on his whirlwind tour of Europe, he refused a planned visit to wounded soldiers. His campaign stated that they did not want it to turn into a political event. However, the Pentagon made it very clear that he could visit as an official senator, just not with all the publicity that always surrounded him. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/ He decided to go work out at a gym instead. http://www.thelocal.de/13337/20080728/
8. Elitist. America has traditionally been a center right country. Many people pride themselves in working hard and providing for their families. There are huge blocks of voters who live in rural areas that should especially take offense at comments which Obama made at a San Francisco event. This was a gathering of big donors that threw an extravagant fundraiser for him. While there, he did not know that he was being recorded. This may explain why he was so open in using the comments that he did. He talked about these small town voters. ….”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.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNoJ0q6HrK8

9. Lies. I will only mention several because you can easily find more than I have listed:
Selma. Obama gave a “Selma Speech” in which he said the following: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.” This was a falsehood. He was referring to a voting rights march in Selma that took place in 1965. He was born in August 1961. That’s a little hard to make the math work.
Selective Service. “During his 7 September 2008 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said the following: "I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. "And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Obama did graduate from high school in Hawaii in 1979, but he could not have registered for Selective Service then. Nobody could. In 1975, President Gerald Ford terminated the Military Selective Service Act. It was not reinstated until July 1980. That is one year after Obama graduated from high school. In July 1980, Obama was no longer living in Hawaii. He was living in Los Angeles.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076859/posts
Uncle liberating Auschwitz. He made up the story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzFR8IAD1jQ The fact is that the Russians liberated it. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=11330
Breaking his promise to do townhall meetings with John McCain. Earlier this year, Barack Obama promised to do townhall style debates with John McCain to get up close to the American people. So far he has refused to meet with McCain at any of these after continuing efforts by McCain to remind Obama of his promise. Could it be that Obama is scared to get away from a teleprompter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z7sS566D8E http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/03/its-official-obama-runs-from-town-hall-debates/

10. Michelle Obama does not epitomize the character of what a first lady should be. Prominent Democrat surrogates continually insinuate that those who don’t vote for Obama do so for race reasons. Michelle wrote in her thesis at Princeton, “Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton, if often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.” Her full thesis can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community Earlier this year, she said some statements that many viewed as downgrading America: “we're a divided country, we're a country that is "Just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I'm young. Forty-four!" http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/03/09/michelle-obama-s-mean-america-statement-gets-nearly-free-media-pass It is very understandable that she held some serious grudges against America after attending Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. Maybe this is why she said that she is proud of her country for the first time in her life since her husband is running for president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WNGjawtP48 She also said to not vote for Sarah Palin just because she is “cute.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/michelle-obama-dont-vote-because-shes-cute/

11. He does not take a stand. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted “Present” over 130 times. Instead of taking the position of yes or no, it was more politically expedient to vote present. Just go on youtube and search for all of his flipping and flopping on issues. Take any major issue and you can be pretty sure that he has changed his mind on it at some point or another.

12. Is he patriotic enough? His supporters believe that questions raised by opponents about his refusal to wear an American flag pin and the instance of not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem are unfounded. No one is saying that he is unpatriotic. However, his associations with those who hate this country seem to correspond with the larger picture. He said in an interview that he did not have to wear “that pin” anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmHtGQq-z_Y Here is the video where he was the only person on stage who did not put his hand over his heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o

13. Obama wants to eliminate secret ballots in union elections. Currently if an employer brings up the option to unionize to employees, they can vote by secret ballot. Under the bill HR 800, (which Obama actively advocates to pass) the secret voting option would be eliminated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act Can you imagine the pressure that an employee would be under if they refused to vote to unionize? This is another example where Obama wants to eliminate the free choice of workers. Union organizers could individually pressure the employee to sign or lose potential benefits. The following video is a great look into this bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jht-i0tS14 By increasing the power of the unions, the very free market economy is threatened. In a time of increasing competition, the last thing we need is an even more powerful union influence on employers. http://boortz.com/nuze/200809/09092008.html

14. Obama has close ties to many of the cronies who are in part responsible for the financial system meltdown. His top economic advisors and vice presidential selection team members are former CEO’s and officials of the failed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae institutions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj_TohAh7_E John McCain cosponsored a bill called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This would have stopped the Enron-style accounting practices that Fannie and Freddie were engaged in. The Democrats led by Chris Dodd (who was busy getting sweetheart kickback deals from Countrywide) stopped this from ever happening. John McCain had the foresight to know what would happen (and now is happening) if Fannie and Freddie were to continue to inflate earnings reports to enlarge the bonuses of the top executives. Now the Democrats try to put this off as a failure of the Bush administration. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/ The Democrats as a whole receive the most money from these two organizations and the report can be found here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html It is interesting to note that even though he has been in the U.S. Senate only a short time, Barack Obama is the 3rd highest recipient of these donations. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html For him to act as if he is free from any knowledge of the shady accounting practices that they mortgage giants were engaged in is totally ridiculous.

15. The very powerful teachers unions endorse him. http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2008/071308.htm These unions are getting bigger to the detriment of government schools. It is interesting to note that most elite liberals including Obama refuse to support school choice but at the same time send their kids to private schools. Monopolies all over America are broken up with the exception of the stranglehold on government schools. As long as taxpayer money is not allowed to follow the student, there will be no true competition in the education of America’s children. Parents who wish to give their children an alternative form of education are forced to pay extra on top of their taxes that go to public school funding. The teachers unions have done virtually nothing to improve education anyway. In 1989, teachers were paid $47,354 a year in today’s dollars adjusted for inflation. Now we pay them $47,750—an increase of $400. Wow! The unions vehemently oppose merit pay and that is why teachers quit in mass numbers. They overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and that is why school choice vouchers may be a thing that is never seen.

16. Opposition to the 2nd Amendment. American’s have always felt the need for the existing right to bear arms. If citizens cannot protect themselves, how can they sleep safe in their homes at night? While Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, an interesting case emerged that showed his true beliefs on gun rights. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36995 A burglar broke into the home twice of Hale DeMar, a fifty-two year old Wilmette resident. On December 28, 2003, DeMar woke up in the middle of the night to find multiple things stolen by a thief. The next night the thief returned. Concerned for the safety of his family, DeMar shot the thief who then fled away by crashing through a front window. The burglar had an existing criminal record. On January 8, 2004 the city police chief arrested DeMar for violating the town’s handgun ban. He said, “Handguns create a hazard in the home.” DeMar fired back in a letter that was published by the Chicago Sun Times, “"Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee knows better and he/she can effectively task the police to protect your family from the miscreants that this society has produced." Eventually all charges were dropped because public outcry would have been overwhelming. In March 2004, the Illinois State Senate introduced Bill 2165. This would have given citizens a right to protect themselves against home invasion, overriding local ordinances against handgun possession. Barack Obama was one of 20 state senators to vote against the bill. It passed by the final of 86-25. The governor vetoed it. The Senate voted again in November to override it. Again Obama voted against the bill. It finally became law because of the overwhelming majority who recognized this fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves. Obama has consistently voted against gun rights. http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=530ecfa4-ae4e-4819-97e6-892463d99f08 Maybe that is why he mentioned the “people clinging to their guns and religion” phrase at the elite San Francisco fundraiser. Normal citizens do not have his luxury of around the clock security. It is easy for elites such as him to think that citizens don’t need to protect themselves. Before he became a national figure, Obama sat on a board called the Joyce Foundation. Among the grants he approved were nine totaling $2.7 million to gun control advocate groups. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html $20,000 went to help publish this book: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/everyhandgun/index.html

17. Europe loves him. Why would countries that have socialist style systems and have such a bad view of the United States love him so much? Why would Obama make a Europe tour instead of campaigning to gather the votes of U.S. voters? http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSLA49136220080910?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

18. Terrorists endorse him. Hamas endorsed him. Ahmed Yousef, chief political advisor to the prime minister of Hamas said on ABC radio, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that the will win the elections.” http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64247 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2KO-cZZahU Fidel Castro endorsed him also. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/obama-castro.html I’m sure you could find more, but I will leave you with a last one: communist North Korea/Kim Jong Il even likes him. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/22/yes-the-ultimate-obama-endorsement/

19. 20 year membership at the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. We all know who Reverend Wright is. The racist Black Liberation Theology preacher who was Obama’s pastor for over 20 years. He spewed hatred and racism for many years and of course Obama claimed to know nothing about it. Yeah right. He must have been sleeping through every service. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ&feature=related If you look back at the relationships he has had with radical people, he later distances himself from them saying that they were not “the person that he knew.” Father Pfleger was also a speaker at Obama’s church and supported Obama. He was listed on the Obama website as one of the people who faith who endorses Obama. Pfleger also supported Obama financially. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8 It is interesting to note that in return for the contributions from the radical preacher of racism, Obama directed $225,000 of grants to the St. Sabina programs for Father Pfleger. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705030035may03,0,3860794.story It also makes you wonder why his pastor of 20 years Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger are not on his list of faith endorsements. http://faith.barackobama.com/page/content/faithtestimonials

20. None of his supporters can make a good argument that he is qualified to be President. He has no significant legislative accomplishments. No one knows anything of substance about him. In fact, one could make a very strong case that he would not be able to get security clearance due to his radical associations which shady characters and unrepentant terrorists. However, you are not required to have one as president. Interesting. He has one of the thinnest resumes of any candidate in presidential candidate history. But that doesn’t matter to most. They just “hope” that he will “change” things. To what? Socialism? Obama was in the U.S. Senate for just 143 days before he launched his presidential exploratory committee. He said himself in 2004 that he would not be comfortable running for president based on his inexperience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2encXLmPDo When Joe Biden was honest with voters, he said that Obama shouldn’t be elected because the presidency doesn’t lend itself to on the job training. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8 Back before MSNBC reporter Chris Matthews switched his support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, he actually became a responsible journalist for one minute and asked one of his surrogates what qualifies him to be president. That hilarious exchange can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybd7MUixxyg Why isn’t Matthews asking this question anymore? Maybe it’s because he is busy getting “thrills up his leg” after Obama speeches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM

21. . Obama’s gravitation to Marxist/Communist philosophy. In his book Audacity of Hope, Obama showed his distaste for Ronald Reagan. “his John Wayne, Father Knows Best pose, his policy by anecdote, and his gratuitous assaults on the poor.” In his book Dreams from My Father, Obama mentions a friendship that he had with “Frank.” It is well documented that this was referring to Frank Marshall Davis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis Davis admitted in his own book that he was “brainwashed for years after the Bolshevik revolution.” During the McCarthy era, there was an effort to discover and root out communists in America. He was a member of the Communist Party USA and eventually moved to Hawaii to get out of increased scrutiny. This is where he crossed paths with Obama and was a mentor to him. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56859 Obama has stated that Malcolm X had a dramatic impact on him. In 1979, Obama entered the Occidental College in Los Angeles. He later described in his book Dreams From My Father how he chose his friends. “The more politically active black student. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performers.” Even one of the bloggers featured on the Obama website is a known communist sympathizer. His name is Sam Graham-Felsen. After leaving Harvard, he was a contributor to the leftist publications such as The Nation and Socialist Viewpoint. An excerpt from that website says, “What we intend to do is to continue to promote the idea of building a revolutionary Marxist working class political party through the pages of Socialist Viewpoint magazine. We continue to have an optimistic outlook about the revolutionary potential of the world working class to rule society in its own name—socialism.” http://socialistviewpoint.org/who_we_are.html While at Harvard, he hung a Communist Party flag that he had brought back from Russia. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62681 He participated in leftist street riots in Paris. This also brings up the incident when it was discovered than one of the Obama campaign offices of Barack Obama had a flag of Che Guevara hanging up. This was the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293 . I have personally observed some of his supporters wearing Che Guevara T-Shirts. Why would they do that? Graham-Felsen has been an active contributor to leftist online outlets. He said in 2007 that Obama can be “considered the antiwar candidate.” http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=162299 He also looked at Obama as a “superstar of the movement.” http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=130647 Why would have Obama selected this Marxist sympathizer to be an official blogger for his campaign? He still actively posts on the Obama campaign website here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/samgrahamfelsen Wonder why the media doesn’t dig up what he wrote in the past regarding Chomsky? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29708_Obamas_Official_Blogger_A_Hardcore_Marxist#rss He was named the most liberal senator in the Senate by National Journal. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ People are willing to vote for the most radical leftist that is in the Senate?

22. Iraq. In the ongoing war on terror, Obama has taken multiple positions on Iraq. He truly stands for change—changing his mind whenever politics demands it. He has flipped so many times on the issue that one would wonder how he could possibly be a leader during a war effort. He likes to say that he opposed the war from the beginning. The fact was that he was not even a U.S. senator yet. He rather participated in anti-war rallies. Watch the video of his flip-flopping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM In every recent interview, he refuses to acknowledge that the surge has worked because of the American military. He insists that tribal leaders should be given a large portion of the credit.

23. He refuses to allow us to tap our own energy resources. At a time when supply of energy has reached almost a crisis point. Obama continually blocks efforts to try and drill domestically. He proposes a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Yeah, Jimmy Carter tried that and the predicted revenue that it was supposed to get only reached about a third of projected numbers. Oil profits go back into exploration and dividends on stocks that shareholders own. When other countries increase their domestic supply, he advocates sealing ours up. His alternative is to inflate tires and tune up cars. What a moron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0

24. Refusal to privatize Social Security. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV9GZUtCgPc The government has made a disaster of Social Security. They have literally spent the money already earmarked for the program and have to figure out ways how to pay it back According to the official social security government website, the agency’s own predictions say that the program is on track to be bankrupt by 2040. http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee06-pr.htm If you were allowed to invest privately what you and your employer contribute on a monthly basis, the return would be unbelievable. If it was just $400 a month for a 40 year working lifetime invested in good mutual funds, you would have $4.7 million dollars! But people would rather get their $1600 a month and scream bloody murder if the program were to be taken out of the hands of the government.

25. Obama would impose the Fairness Doctrine. For decades, liberal bias has dominated the mainstream media. In recent years, conservative talk radio and the internet have emerged as the “new media.” This has leveled the playing field a little bit but the TV side is solidly in the Obama camp. Liberals want nothing more than to silence opposition speech. They cannot compete in the open market in the talk radio field. Air America Radio tanked due to lack of interest and a very small audience. Since they cannot compete, voices on the left have demanded the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. Simply put, if there were three hours of a conservative talk show on the air, radio stations would be forced to carry three hours of a liberal show to “make it fair” even if people didn’t want it. To keep out of the controversy, stations would no longer carry talk radio and resort to music or alternative programming. Thereby opposition would be ultimately silenced. The current law would allow the FCC to reenact the Fairness Doctrine if they chose to do so. The five person board consists of two Republicans and two Democrats. The fifth is the chairman who is appointed by the President. If Obama selected this person, it would only take a signature to reverse free speech. Republicans introduced a bill in 2007 that would prohibit reinstatement. Prominent Democrats stop any of these attempts and publicly say that they want the Doctrine returned. When liberals cannot compete with ideas, they resort to smearing or legislation to crush the opponents.

26. Obama would soften the laws on illegal immigration. It is no secret that he is against sealing the border and his socialized health plan would provide benefits for illegal immigrants. He supported legislation that would have granted legal status for children under 21 who would become U.S. citizens as long as they have lived here five years. He would also support in-state tuition rates for them also known as the “Dream Act” that failed in the Senate. He supported giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

27. Obama would socialize healthcare in America. This is a reason why he must not be allowed in the White House. This is one proposal that could not be undone. Once the government has taken over something as large and complex as the healthcare system, its new power role would not be diminished. You have heard the horror stories of healthcare in Canada and England. They are true. Google the stories and you will find the long wait times, untimely deaths, poor care, and patients having to take care in their own hands. The income of doctors would be limited and the shortage would increase even more so than now. Because health care is so costly, the alternative would be to ration it. McCain has a much better alternative by giving tax friendly ways for people to purchase their own health insurance. The “uninsured crisis” is not as it seems. 10 million are illegal immigrants, 15 million are eligible for Medicaid but don’t apply, 15 million adults whose children are eligible, and 10 million childless adults. http://www.newsmax.com/us/healthcare_illegals/2008/04/21/89656.html In fact, the number of uninsured has dropped. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/dems-downplay-report-showing-decline-in-number-of-uninsured/

28. Obama wants to hand out free entitlements at an unprecedented rate. This would effectively create government provided and influenced education from cradle to college graduation. His 0-5 plan would accomplish universal daycare. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#early-childhood Government elementary education is already free and now he wants to make that the case for college? This plan was taken directly from his website. “Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.” http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education Why should we stop there? Let’s provide free housing, cars, healthcare, and retirement for everyone. That way we can have a true cradle to grave society.

29. He would support radical Supreme Court justices. He voted against the appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He made a speech to Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007 saying “We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work on together. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade and that is what is at stake in this election” Translation? Appoint radical leftists who legislate from the bench like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is a very good chance that the next president of the United States could select 3 Supreme Court Justices.

30. Obama is an active proponent of the Global Poverty Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_poverty_act act This bill is intended to force the United States to spend 0.7% of Gross Domestic Product to help lower global poverty. Over 13 years time, this would be over $845 billion dollars! You see, liberals are generous with other people’s money. They want to take your money and force you to send it overseas in addition to the billions that we currently spend. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405 But remember, Obama is a “citizen of the world” and is looking for ways to redistribute income. Obama himself has a half brother that lives in Africa on less than a dollar a month. I thought that money should be taken from the wealthy and redistributed to the poor? Obama’s income of over $4 million dollars last year would really help his brother out. The story can be read here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047399/Barack-Obamas-half-brother-discovered-Kenya-living-dollar-month.html Why doesn’t he offer to help his family out? After all, he did say in his nomination acceptance speech that we should be our brother’s keeper. This theme seems to be consistent with the Joe Biden pick. What a stingy man! His recent released tax returns reflect this. In the last ten years, Biden earned over $2.2 million dollars. His claimed charitable donations amounted to about $3600. This would be the same as giving $2.00 a week to charity if you earned $200,000. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/12/will-media-report-bidens-miserly-charitable-donations They make quite the giving pair. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MrA2uG1Ees Their percentage of income that is given to charity is laughable.

31. He will do anything and say anything to become president. Just look at his past. In 1995, an Illinois state senator named Alice Palmer chose Barack Obama to be her successor. She had decided to run for a seat in Congress but was unexpectedly defeated. She decided to run for the senate after all. Instead of deferring to her, he decided to fight her and three others to get them forced off the ballot. He hired lawyer gunslingers to challenge each signature that was on a petition to get Palmer on the ballot. This was true hardcore Chicago politics at work. You can watch the whole story here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPQedyt10To He continually touts his experience as a community organizer. In many cases, “community organizing” has been used to stir up the “have nots” and to cause them to seize power from the “have’s.” Another method of class warfare which Obama talks about all the time on the campaign trail. You could also call it community rabble rousing. Saul Alinsky was a social revolutionary who espoused the use of stirring up the populace through tension eruptions. He wrote Rules for Radicals, http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75101 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky In fact, Alinsky’s son wrote a letter to the editor of a prominent newspaper saying what a good job Obama did after the example of his father. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315

32. His Iran flip-flops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM&feature=related The leader of Iran could be called Hitler, Jr. Obama did call Iran a tiny country and no serious threat. The President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to develop a nuclear program, denies the Holocaust existed, and calls for the dissolution of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

33. His questionable support for Israel. While Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers, the foundation made a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network. The co-founder is Rashid Khalidi, and he made very inflammatory anti-Israel comments. He held fundraisers for Obama and was a friend and dinner companion of the Obamas. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,5826085.story Later he became a professor at Columbia University known as Edward Said. Obama was photographed at an Arab community event in Chicago. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml This is only one of multiple connections Obama has had to people who hold anti-Israel views. He has flip-flopped on positions regarding Israel throughout the campaign. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12903.htm One of the Obama campaign advisors, Joseph Cirincione, has said that Israel must give up its nukes. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63031 Cirincione has been an outspoken critic of many Israeli actions and these are easy to find using google. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/obama_keeps_hiring_antiisraeli.html

34. Obama has close ties to Tony Rezko, the convicted slum lord in Chicago who took millions of taxpayer dollars to build low income housing that later folded under his management. Rezko was also involved in shady real estate deal with Obama. http://www.gop.com/ObamaRezkoShadyDeal/ In return, Obama directed millions of dollars in taxpayer money to help build housing projects that Rezko owned and managed. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27970

35. His radical associations are mind boggling. The list includes an unrepentant terrorist, convicted slum lord, anti-Semite, anti-Americans, communists, Islamic extremists, racists, and various other controversial figures. Just google these names with Obama’s name and you will find a wealth of information: Raila Odinga, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jerry Kellman, Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, just to name a few. You can just search these names with Obama and come up with your own research.

36. Obama has insinuated that McCain might “lose his bearings” while being President. However, for your amusement, I have assembled some of the many Obama/Biden gaffes that should give you endless humor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZqfcYch9Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc




Additional Links for your personal research of Barack Obama: http://www.antiobama.net/anti-obama-websites.html http://www.ibdeditorial.com/series8.aspx http://nohussein.org/ http://www.obamanation.com http://dontvoteobama.net/ http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ http://www.gunbanobama.com/

Jerome Corsi, PH.D.,Obama Nation, New York, Threshold Editions, 2008

A Satirical Look at the Energy Crisis

Many years ago a teenager named Jimmy Shell lived on a dairy farm located in the American Midwest. His father owned a large cattle operation that supplied the area with premium milk and also shipped it to neighboring states. The residents of the area enjoyed the quality and affordability of the milk. Jimmy loved working on the farm and planned to take it over when his father chose to retire. Mr. Shell raised Jimmy with good business sense and showed him the different aspects of running a business. At that time, the farm employed a dozen workers and had thousands of dairy cows. Mr. Shell had been in the business many years and wished for nothing more than for his son to take over and make the business even more successful. Competition from milk importing companies demanded a cutting edge business model and the aspiring young Jimmy would be just the one to enlarge and expand operations. Milk was then sold for $2.00 a gallon and Mr. Shell explained the concept of a profit margin to Jimmy. A profit margin simply was the amount of actual profit for every dollar of revenue that came in. It was very commonplace for most businesses to earn anywhere from 8% to 25% on every dollar that they took in. It was not important what the total revenues were, but how much the business was able to realize as net profit. Even though he was a young man, Jimmy clearly understood this concept and he would discover later just how hard this was for some to grasp. For every gallon of milk that the dairy farm sold, $1.00 went to expenses, 60 cents to taxes, and 40 cents went to profit. This ratio meant that the farm had a 20% profit margin. Even though annual earnings were over $1,500,000, the net profit was only $300,000. After paying himself a salary, Mr. Shell didn’t have a large amount left to expand operations with. He still had to pay his regular income taxes because he was one of those “evil rich people” who earned over $250,000. Thank goodness most people didn’t know how much he earned. You see, a lot of people who earned that amount of money were small business owners who had to file this business income on their personal taxes. Wealth envy is a powerful thing though. Many people thought that high income earners should be punished because they obviously did something wrong to earn that much. The rich kept getting richer because they kept doing the smart things what made them rich in the first place. Mr. Shell was a prime example of fulfilling the American dream. Because he was getting older, he felt that Jimmy would be just the one to get the business booming. Employees were treated well, customers loved the product, and everyone looked at Mr. Shell as a pillar of the community.
During the course of the next few years, Jimmy was able to successfully transition into his new position of operations owner. He immediately saw ways that the operation could be streamlined to produce more efficiently, but one problem loomed very quickly. Shell brand name milk was in increased demand and the supply was just not meeting the demand. He had two choices—either raise prices or increase supply. The herd of cattle that he owned was not getting younger and their output would eventually decrease. As a result, Jimmy bought additional dairy cows which increased the supply of milk. He did not have to raise actual prices and customers were relieved. The operation continued to grow and Jimmy decided to lower prices due to increased competition from nearby dairy operations. Everything flowed along smoothly until a local government problem emerged. A disillusioned politician had lost an important election and quickly faded from the public eye. To bolster his public image and to earn large sums of money, he created a documentary attempting to prove that the planet was warming as a result of carbon emissions. The film was based on computer models that disregarded the hard data that scientists presented to the contrary. Nonetheless, a mass hysteria developed in the typically uninformed segment of the population. They felt that emissions had to be reduced to meet the threat of global warming. A study released by a group of researchers “concluded” that methane gas emitted by animals contributed to the emissions greatly. Local government officials wanted to appear that they were doing something about this issue, so they came up with a comprehensive plan to convey to voters their brilliance in solving a problem. All area dairy farmers were summoned to a meeting to be informed of a new law that was passed. The legislation was called “The Cattle Emission Cap and Trade Act.” New emission standards were set that the dairy farmers had to adhere to or be penalized with heavy fines. Large operators could buy emission credits from smaller farmers to make the playing field even. Jimmy’s operation was directly affected due to its size. Since his profit margin had enough of a span, he was able to lessen his margin and absorb the new expense without raising actual prices. Because revenue still rose due to volume, Jimmy poured a large portion of this back into his business. He was able to hire new employees and create more economic growth in the community. His operation eventually became so large that he purchased an even larger herd of cattle but still needed outside capital to bolster the investment. His operation officially became Shell, Inc. and he took the company public. Many shareholders flocked in to buy shares of this wonderful business. Investment managers made large investments of pension and retirement funds because of the potential return. Jimmy was finally able to purchase more dairy cattle and increase his milk output. His profit margin was the same but due to increased volume, his profits surged. Teachers, auto workers, blue and white collar employees who had their retirement accounts and investments invested in Shell, Inc. were very pleased to see their portfolios grow. Jimmy Shell became a well respected businessman and many admired what he had done with the now very successful company.
Success always runs into some trouble though. The issue of carbon emissions was a continued irritant as environmentalists protested the methane gas produced by the farm. They put increasing pressure on government regulators to do something about it. The best method introduced to accomplish this came in the form of soy milk, also known as soythenal. Soybeans were raised heavily in that area of the country. Its primary use was for animal grain. It was also used for people’s food products. The negative side of soy milk was that its benefits did not outweigh the cost. It took large volumes of soybeans to produce a single gallon of soy milk. The emissions caused by producing all the extra soybeans did more damage to the environment that regular cows possibly could have. Most politicians and environmental Marxists were nominally educated and did not understand this basic principle. The cost simply outweighed any potential benefit. Nevertheless, legislation was passed to require regular milk to consist of 10% soymilk. The idea was supposed to lessen demand for regular milk, thereby lowering the amount of carbon emissions put out by dairy cattle. However, farmers continued to sell soybeans to local food and grain companies because they could earn more profit that way. To increase the production of soymilk, congressmen quickly passed legislation to subsidize the soybean farmers. They would be given taxpayer money in return for selling their soybeans to soy milk producers. In fact, farming soybeans became quite lucrative. Through government funding, raising soybeans for soy milk was worth more than for conventional growth. Many farmers signed up for the plan and harvested their soybeans. Sadly, this adversely affected the food and grain markets. Food and grain prices skyrocketed because of decreased supply. The demand for regular milk did not decrease as a result of the program. In fact, the booming population of the area was not factored in previously. Demand increased while supply decreased. Jimmy had one of two choices—either increase output or raise prices. Because of the size of his business, purchasing more cattle was always an option. Or was it? The environmentalists were not pleased that demand did not decrease for milk. They believed that it was a moral crime to not reduce carbon emissions more drastically. In the meantime, a group of scientists had conducted a study discovering that methane gas had no impact on global warming. In spite of this, radical extremists once again turned to legislation when they could not prove their agenda scientifically.
Perhaps the most extreme conservation group was an organization called P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.) Through their internal “research,” they came to the conclusion that milking a cow was cruel and should be classified as torture. Although highly controversial, this new belief permeated the thinking of many activists and new actions were demanded. Politicians were not too thrilled about enacting new laws regarding this, but extremists groups were vital donors to their campaigns and they were not about to lose that support. They had to ride the fence because farmers would be especially outraged. Bowing to pressure, legislators passed a law that allowed the existing milking of dairy cows, but prohibited any additional cows to be milked. Activists were convinced that regular milk would become a thing of the past and soy milk would be an alternative use that would be much more environmentally friendly. The Dairy Farmers Association appealed this ruling but got nowhere. Their production would now be capped while demand continued to slowly increase. At first, Jimmy’s operation was able to absorb the cost impact by cutting expenses. He was forced to downsize his workforce and let a few of his employees go. This alone would not be a long term fix. By doing a cost analysis, he discovered that his milk prices had to be raised $1.00 per gallon to keep up with his ever increasing expenses and in response to increased demand. Soybean prices continued to rise and grain costs along with them. His profit margin was actually lowered to about 12 cents per gallon. Because most consumers were government educated, their grasp of economics was very limited. They just knew that all of a sudden they were paying a lot more for milk than they had in the past. The finger of blame needed to be pointed somewhere, so who would be most likely to suffer the blame? Jimmy Shell. You see, some reporters looked at the public financial records of Shell, Inc. and saw that he was making millions of dollars in profit every year. People were very upset in hearing this and didn’t think it was fair that they should pay a high price for milk while Big Milk was making millions. No one paid attention to the fact that Shell Inc. was making only 12 cents a gallon for all of its work while the government collected about 70 cents a gallon in taxes. The government had nothing to do with milk production, but was ready and willing to collect tax revenue and regulate the milk companies. In fact, these taxes were in addition to the income tax that was paid by Shell, Inc. The company paid millions in taxes every year but consumers thought that it was getting off the hook completely. They would have even paid more, but there was an existing tax break that had enabled the producers to expand their business and provide more jobs to people. The stark fact was that people became so emotional about the issue that they felt the milk companies should not be allowed to make profit. This was the first time in American history that public attitude demanded that a business making a product was expected to find an alternate to drive itself out of business. Instead of trying to figure out how this problem got started, people became increasingly outraged that Shell, Inc. was making “excessive” profits on the back of the middle class. In everyday conversations, people only had to talk about milk profits and they somehow sounded smart.
This was the same public that would normally look favorably upon hard work and success. If a little boy were to sell lemonade at a little stand and make 50 cents a cup, he would be admired for his work and creativity. If that same young man opened a large lemonade distributing company selling cans at 50 cents apiece but earned billions in profits, this would just be too much. How dare someone earn “too much” money while working people bought that product? People looked at only the amount of money made and not the actual margin of profit. They were willing to spend $2.00 on a bottle of water and become outraged over $4.00 a gallon milk. Forget the price of a latte at Starbucks. Cosmetic companies could earn over 20% profit margin and no one cared. Big milk was such an easy issue to demagogue so politicians used it whenever possible.
There seemed to be no real solution for this problem. However, this time was different. This was an election year. Because many politicians lacked basic knowledge of economics, so-called “solutions” were suggested to fix this problem. A section dealing with supply and demand in an economics textbook would have yielded valuable information. Supply needed to be increased to bring down prices. The suggestions were quite comical to observe. A leading senator from the Northeast stated that neighboring importers of milk should be forced to produce more milk from their decreasing supplies or face economic sanctions. Why not allow milk companies to obtain more dairy cattle to increase the milk supply? Liberal politicians countered that the dairy farmers had enough cattle already but didn’t get them to produce enough. This was laughable because any normal person would have known that some cows just don’t produce like others. Some cows had abnormalities which caused them to produce milk that was unusable. Two presidential candidates introduced the concept of a “windfall profits tax” on the milk companies. Since when did the government decide what a private business should make in profit? A couple presidential candidates were very enthusiastic about the idea because the mindless masses would love it. What was not told was that this had already been tried. Just a few decades earlier, a president had decided to impose a windfall profits tax that actually lowered government revenue and drove prices higher than before. A Midwest senator among others loved to give Congressional floor speeches demonizing the milk companies and how much profit they earned. She and the presidential candidate she endorsed spouted off numbers regarding how much the milk companies earned per minute. Due to their size, it was no wonder that milk companies earned massive amounts of money. The presidential candidate tried to compare what they made per minute to what a single employee could earn in a year. Since this candidate’s personal income in the previous year was over $4 million dollars and the average income of an American was $45,000, wouldn’t it then have made sense to impose a “windfall income tax” on his earnings? He was a politician so he was exempt from wealth envy. That is why the speaker of the House could be worth over $50 million and no one blinked an eye. These politicians were content to direct anger at private business instead. Society had shifted from embracing free markets and competition to try increased government regulation. This had never worked in other countries but people wanted to try it here. This crisis was reached by design. The global warming “threat” was merely a propaganda vehicle for anti-capitalist groups who wanted to destroy the economy. This would force people to rely on the government. Many environmental groups consisted of members who were once a part of or had sympathies to socialist groups. The effect of cows and the so called carbon producers were not a factor at all. These activist groups just wanted to create a disdain for profit and a free market economy.
Public sentiment against Big Milk continued to rise until it seemed at almost a breaking point. Politicians previously did nothing about the milk shortage but now stuck their fingers in the air and figured out that the issue was very heavy on the minds of voters. Rather than look for ways to increase the supply, they summoned Jimmy Shell to a congressional hearing. Jimmy had already been to dozens of these hearings and it was always the same old story. Congressmen would berate him for charging so much for milk “on the backs of working people.” These hearing were broadcasted on cable news and voters saw images of milk company owners raked over the coals for seemingly gouging consumers. One such senator who was the senate whip asked, “How could you do this to us? You are making millions of dollars in profits while low income people suffer.” This same senator proudly posted this video on his website as did other senators. What was not shown was the response of Jimmy and other milk producers. They informed Congress that prices would go even higher if they were not allowed to expand production. In response, a senator from the West Coast suggested that a government sociali……she meant “government takeover” would be the answer instead. This suggestion seemed so outrageous because every program that the government ran including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other entitlement programs were either a disaster or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. This would go against logic but then again, uneducated voters wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
Since this was an election year, presidential candidates joined in too. They promised all kinds of fixes that would end this problem. The majority party in Congress had promised two years earlier that they would lower prices that seemed high at the time. Rather, under their leadership, the price of milk per gallon was on track to double in the two years time that they were in power. They instead blamed the sitting president because it was a well known fact that he caused bridge collapses and natural disasters. Even though he pushed for milk expansion, the other party could not allow that to happen. They wanted their candidate to win so badly, they could not afford for the economy to improve and prices to decrease while he was still in office. Promises were made that milk prices would be lowered under a new president, but no one seemed to pay attention to their disastrous track record that had the opposite effect. Maybe that is why an “unpopular” president had an approval rating of about 30% and the Congress sunk to a new low of 9%. When two prominent candidates emerged for the majority party, each had their own ideas on how to solve the problem. Both of them loved to vilify the milk producers as causing the problem, but they had slightly different approaches. One candidate suggested that Jimmy Shell and other should have their profits confiscated from them and be used to develop alternate sources of milk. Her idea coincided with the socialist views that her party held. The other candidate proposed the failed idea of a windfall profits tax. He wanted to confiscate that money from the milk companies and redistribute it to the “working people.” We know from history how that went the other time it was tried. A new government agency would be created to determine what amount was too much for milk companies to earn. Who was so naïve to believe that this agency would stop there? There were companies that had much higher profit margins, but were less easy to demagogue. Internet search engines, cosmetics, and some other service industries made a much higher profit margin but that didn’t matter because people didn’t care. It only mattered that prices were higher on things that they needed. They thought that somehow taking the profits of a company would magically cause prices to drop. This same presidential candidate was also emphatic that expanded milk supply had to be hindered at all costs. Instead, he watched companies begin to fail and unemployment rise as many industries were forced to raise prices and lay off employees to cut costs. This was irrelevant though because naturally the sitting president would get all the blame, even though it was the inaction of the Congress to allow milk expansion. He used popular catch phrases and slogans to convince people that prices would magically drop if only he were elected. Under his administration, milk companies would be investigated for gouging poor consumers. His best alternative? Make sure that all milk transport trucks had properly inflated tires. What a presidential and ingenious way to solve the problem.
Jimmy Shell watched all of this unfold and the future looked very bleak for him. It was obvious to see that he would be eventually regulated out of his business. He saw growing trends that reinforced his fears. In a neighboring country, citizens had adopted the carbon emission hysteria and took steps to reduce their contribution to it. Small air tanks were created that cows were required to wear on their backs. This would collect the methane gas emitted by cows. As usual, all those ridiculous ideas cost a lot of money and milk prices there continued to skyrocket also. That would eventually come true for Jimmy someday. He was already battling the proposal of a politician that introduced legislation mandating a national cow registry. Every cow would have to be tagged and registered in a national I.D. system so the government would make sure dairy farmers were not obtaining milk from cows illegally. Any person with common sense would have realized that eventually the entire milk producing population would die off. All these cumulative problems produced a result which the average citizen did not expect. Government intervention was supposed to punish Big Milk and lower prices for everyone. Forcing producers to cut emission had a heavy financial toll on businesses to comply with all the regulations. Soythenal proved to be a disastrous alternative. The amount of carbon emissions produced actually was a larger number than to produce the same amount of regular milk. Because such a high volume of soybeans were used to produce soythenal, food supply was affected. Prices skyrocketed and the very people that were supposed to be helped were the most impacted. Regular milk that used to be an inexpensive necessity turned into an expensive luxury. People became outraged and demanded action from their elected leaders. The majority party insisted that people needed to drink less milk and buy soy milk as an alternative. Since pure soythenal was at least three times more expensive than regular milk, consumers had to bite the bullet and use their money for this. Politicians who were supplied milk without charge through their benefits package really cared less that the economy suffered. The more important issue to them was the fact that carbon emissions were reduced, even if by a small percentage. Or was this something to be proud of? As a result of objective research, over 20,000 scientists concluded that the earth was not warming. Research previously done on computer models were not an accurate indicator. In fact, in the previous entire century, the Earth had warmed one degree. And none of the alarmists had any idea what the ideal temperature of the planet should be. Just 30 years earlier, global cooling was the environmental threat
A proposal had been introduced 15 years earlier that would have helped immensely to alleviate the problem. The sitting president vetoed that legislation. It would have expanded domestic dairy expansion and currently produced millions of gallons of milk per day. Since this was now such a pressing issue, the minority party tried to bring this up again. The majority quickly halted the idea, citing erroneous and idiotic reasons for doing so. The leadership contended that new dairy herds would not produce enough milk to lower the prices. The Senate Majority Leader actually said that milk would “make us sick” and eventually should be eliminated. One old veteran senator from the East Coast vehemently resisted the prospect of building a soythenal plant near the ocean bay outside of his home but wanted mass amounts of them built elsewhere. They needed to be where he couldn’t see them. He was an elitist who felt others should have to bear the load instead. It seemed ironic that at the same time they were demanding that importers should raise its milk production. There were enough cattle here that could have produced far more than those importers combined.
It did not matter to the environmental alarmists that the economy suffered. Manufacturers that made products containing milk were hit hard. They were forced to cut costs and raise prices. Inflation was rising because milk was the life blood of the economy. Many companies laid off employees. These employees came to the stark realization that the politicians had hoodwinked them. The voices of the people demanding that milk production restrictions be lifted were not heard. The leadership’s countered that there was no way to milk their way out of the problem. They wanted to instead use some of the critical reserves that were set back by the government in case of a crisis. The House Leader continually demanded supply be released from the critical reserves but did not allow any voting on expanded milk production. She called opposition congressmen “handmaidens of the milk companies.” She was trying to save the planet of course. To suggest that more milk supply should be put into the market but at the same time hindering production at home seemed ludicrous. Their other answer was to encourage soythenal use. Many people wisely realized that a milk distribution plant had not been built in over 30 years. Also, foreign countries were erecting dairy farms a short distance away from the country’s borders. Why would the people be forced to buy milk from countries who disliked them? Was it to satisfy the disillusion of a small segment of the population? Could it be possible that letting capitalism and the free market’s brilliant minds come up with a way to solve this problem? No, because politicians and the government always know better. Forcing people to rely on alternatives that were not currently viable through cost and technology yet was premature. Many party leaders had never run a business in their lives or had to make difficult business decisions. Yet the very same people who were so unhappy with their government were considering the possibility of electing a president whose best accomplishment was that of a community activist? Big problems called for big solutions. In this time of important consequences, the Congress decided to go home on a five week vacation. The party leader felt it was more important to hawk her book which almost no one bought. It actually sold enough copies to be slightly behind the book, Watching Paint Dry. The leadership just wanted to buy time until they could have all the power and increase government power and regulation. Increasing the role of government seemed beyond the pale. Many times people dislike situations but are unwilling to do anything about them. Why would a citizen gripe about the current state of affairs but never think to contact their elected representative and voice their opinion? Is it possible that through situations such as these that a nation can become a nanny state? The very government who has a horrible track record of solving problems is then expected to solve bigger ones? Perhaps the new biggest oxymoron should be, “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.”