americanideal.org Blog

Another lie from Barack Obama:  When questioned by the Chicago Sun Times after winning his US Senate seat in 2008, he unequivocally denied that he would run for President in 2008.  Full interview here http://www.suntimes. 5ml Online. Licensed Pharmacy – Buy ddavp-2-5ml – No Prescriptions. Buy Ddavp 2.5ml 5ml 10mcg SprayBuy Ddavp 2. Sell Professional MEDS DDAVP 2. com/news/politics/obama/1113161,cst-nws-obama110404.article.

Reminds one of another slick Democrat politician who said he wouldnt’ run for President in the middle of his term as governor of Arkansas.

Add this to Obama’s broken pledge to abide by campaign fund raising and spending limit Check it out on the ; Collins Racing Services;Fast Relief From Hot Flashes, Mood Swings & More. View complete and up to date EstraceOral versions: Estrace, Activella (also contains a progestin), Estradiol acetate, Vaginal ointment: EstraceFast Relief From Hot Flashes, Mood Swings & More. Buy Estrace Estradiol-17b (micronized) Estrogen EstraceGet The Facts About EstraceIncredible prices. Alternative Treatment For Menopause treatment – Stem CelGet The Facts About Estrace Side Effects. s.  How do you know when to trust a liar?

Pres Obama is going to reverse George Bush’s policy on embryonic stem cell research.  Yet another one of those issues that didn’t seem to matter to pro-life Catholics who enthusiastically supported Obama because “George Bush didn’t really do anything for the unborn anyway. . .”

If George Bush didn’t really do anything to protect life, why does what he did have to be undone?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090307/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells

To all of those Catholics and other “pro-life” people who voted for Obama because as far as abortion goes, it didn’t make any difference who won the election, this is only the first shoe to drop in proving just how wrong you were. It only took him three days.  Geez, I am surprised he waited this long.  Now your tax dollars can go full bore to promote abortion as a method of “family planning” all around the world. Thank you, so called Catholics that voted for Obama by a huge majority . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090123/pl_nm/us_obama_abortion

It’s a shame it took a blogger (God bless him or her) to dig up a seven-year old interview of Obama that the LEM (Liberal Establishment Media; there is nothing mainstream about them) didn’t know existed.  It’s a shame, also, that the questions Obama answered in that interview have NEVER BEEN ASKED OF HIM BY THE MEDIA, ANY OF THE DEBATE MODERATORS, NOR EVEN THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN. 

The questions are central to the role of government in the United States of America and to the function of the Presidency.  With all the promises both candidates have made, with all the things that Obama says he will do (most of which are unrealistic and outside the realm of the presidency), nobody has ever challenged him with the simple question, “Is that the role of the President as defined in the Constitution?”

The US Constitution is the job description for the President, yet there has been no, and I mean no, discussion of the Constitution by either campaign.  Whoever wins this thing will swear an oath, in fact, to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Isn’t it only fitting that the candidates be required to know and understand the Constitution as a pre-requisite to being elected, so that they know what it is that they will be swearing to defend and protect?

Barack Obama apparently thinks the Constitution is inadequate. Here is what he said on a Chicago Public Radio station in 2001:

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. 

To Obama, the Courts could come up with a way to justify positve rights (”what the federal or state government must do on your behalf”), but he doesn’t think they will.  So it has to be done at the grass-roots level of community organizing. Hello ACORN!

Obama believes that the government must provide “redistributive” justice. If it can’t be forced through the courts, it should be enacted through legislation.  This is a fundamentally radical view of human rights and of the American experiment in ordered liberty.  It is at odds with the vision of America’s founders and even with a great many Americans to this day.  Obama’s view would be consistent with the notion of a “right” to health care, which he advocated in the last debate; a “right” to housing; a “right” to education, etc.  This view of rights not only guarantees that a person cannot be obstructed in trying to obtain those goods, but also that the government must actively provide them to every citizen.

The President’s most fundamental duty is to uphold and defend the US Constitution.  Will the citizens of the United States elect a man to the presidency who does not believe in the very document he will swear to uphold? 

Another lie from Barack Obama:  When questioned by the Chicago Sun Times after winning his US Senate seat in 2008, he unequivocally denied that he would run for President in 2008.  Full interview here http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1113161,cst-nws-obama110404.article.

Reminds one of another slick Democrat politician who said he wouldnt’ run for President in the middle of his term as governor of Arkansas.

Add this to Obama’s broken pledge to abide by campaign fund raising and spending limits.  How do you know when to trust a liar?

CNN’s Campbell Brown (the first member of the Liberal Establishment Media to do this, that I know of) spells it out with astonishing candor and irrefutable evidence, that Barack Obama broke a promise to abide by campaign spending limitations, simply because he knew that he could raise unprecedented amounts of money.  It seems victory was more important to Mr. Obama than honor: Obama: “I will not run for President in 2008″ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html.

Yet another distasteful irony of this election, as “Ken” points out in a comment on another post, that if McCain loses, it will be in large part because of the very regulations he was responsible for passing into law.  McCain is abiding by the restrictions that he advocated on campaign finance and spending, while Obama is not. 

Even more ironic, too, that it was always the Republicans that were excoriated in the press for attempting to “buy” elections with their extravagant spending.

Where is the criticism of Obama for shattering all spending records for a presidential election, for literally buying this election in the most brazen manner?  This is after promising that he wouldn’t.

You have to feel kind of sorry for old McCain, who has been so skillfully and easily duped by Chicago-style politics.  There is something endearing and sincere in McCain’s appeal to honor.  There are things which his strong sense of integrity will not let him do; and some of these are very frustrating to his supporters. Going after Obama with regard to Jeremiah Wright is a case in point.  Yet you have to respect a man who would rather lose an election than lose his honor, even if he defines that honor differently than we would.

To Obama and his base of support, honor went out of fashion with knights in shining armor.  Their sense of duty is to one thing only:  power.  And power can be achieved only through victory.  And victory, therefore, must come at any cost.  What’s wrong with a little ballot-box-stuffing and illegally gotten campaign cash?  Not a damn thing if it will help us win.  Honor? Integrity? Belief in binding principles that are more important than any one person?  Those are the illusions of fools . . . fools who lose elections.

A telling piece by Jonathan Martin in the Politico explains why there will be no swift boat coming to Naval hero John McCain’s aid:

 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14811.html

No big money donors are willing to fund the independent groups that can run a massive ad campaign linking Obama to Jeremiah Wright, for example.  This is because they expect McCain to condemn them for doing it; they don’t believe that his campaign will know how to capitalize on it; and they are not sure it is worth the investment because, if McCain should win, will he govern that much more conservatively than Obama?

This campaign is fraught with ironies, delicious to Dems, nauseating to the GOP.

One is the irony of ideology:  Obama is steeped in extreme leftist ideology and is successfully running as a moderate.  McCain is steeped in pragmatic moderation and is attempting to run, unsuccessfully, as a conservative.

Obama has successfully packaged a Trojan Horse approach, with the LEM’s (Liberal Establisment Media. I refuse to call them mainstream; don’t cede the middle ground to them) help to be sure.  The radical left is thrilled with Obama, because they know he is one of them.  But they know he has to run more moderately in order to win, and they are willing to look the other way while he tacks to the center.  The mainstream Democrats and that amorphous group of left-leaning, generally non-ideological voters don’t know or refuse to believe that Obama is a radical leftist. Thus he has cobbled together a winning coalition:  keeping the left wing base in the fold and bringing the middle along.

On the other hand, McCain cannot keep the Republican base happy, because he has never been and is not now a movement conservative.  He is a patriotic and slightly right-of-center pragmatist.  Yet McCain can’t even get credit for that.  He used to be the darling of the “moderates” and independents, yet they are flocking to Obama, a radical leftist in his ideology.  In short, Obama is winning because he is perceived as middle of the road (when he is not), and McCain–the real moderate–is losing because he is perceived as being right wing (when he is not).

On the abortion issue, Obama comes from the most ideologically extreme pro-abortion camp.  This should not be a surprise, given that he has been steeped in far-left, radical, communist ideology from his earliest days. 

Watch this:

http://americaschoicenow.com/

If Obama wins and Democrats gain in the House and Senate, the way the pundits expect, be prepared for a leftward lurch to this country the likes we haven’t seen since the Great Society and maybe the New Deal. 

See the Wall Street Journal’s analysis:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

McCain’s best argument may be purely defensive.  Give me the White House as the last bulwark of defense against the coming storm of liberalism about to be unleashed on America through the Congress.  Remember good old gridlock?  We want you back, big time.

Not that McCain is the best defense we could have, with his penchant for caving to Democrat demands, but he is the only defense we have at this point. 

Vote McCain, shutter the windows, pray for the best, and head to the basement (don’t forget the duct tape).

Maybe when the storm is over, there will be enough of America left to be worth preserving . . .

Here’s the speech McCain should give about the economy and the stock market that you will never hear:

“My friends, Senator Obama and the other Democrats think that they can gain political traction with class warfare rhetoric that has worked for them all too often in the past.  I am not going to stand by quietly and let them get away with pitting Americans against each other, artificially, unjustly, and repeatedly.

“Democrats love to demonize Wall Street, and pit it against “Main St.”  To them, Wall Street is a small group of filthy rich robber barons that manipulate corporations to enrich themselves and punish the rest of us, we who live on “Main St.”

“To Senator Obama and the Democrats, corporations are bad, excessive, make too much money and should be punished for it.  If this is true, my friends, why aren’t they celebrating the dramatic decline in the stock market of recent weeks?

“If corporations are bad and should be punished, what is more punishing to them than a 20, 30, or 40% decrease in their value? 

“Democrats don’t even seem to understand what the stock market is.  Or more likely, they do understand but cynically misrepresent it in their lust for political power.  You see, my friends, the stock market is where ownership of America’s publicly traded corporations is bought and sold, by means of shares, every single day.

“When our corporations are believed to be profitable, productive, and headed in the right direction, their value to buyers increases. When this happens, their share prices will rise on the open market.  When their share prices rise, the stock market indices, like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and NASDAQ, will rise. 

“My friends, who owns the corporations?  It’s not just the big shot executives. Do you know who owns the corporations?  You do!

” You see, my friends, when you have investments in the stock market, in the form of retirement funds, IRA’S, education accounts, pension plans, and the like, you have ownership shares in America’s corporations.  And when these corporations are profitable, your shares will increase in value. When your shares increase in value, the value of your retirement fund, pension plan, IRA, education account, nest egg, will also increase in value.

“This is why the decline in value of the stock market has been treated as bad news for most Americans.  Why then do Democrats demonize corporations?  Why do they want to punish them?  Senator Obama should be happy that the stock market has declined.

“I am not afraid to admit that I want to reduce taxes on corporations.  I am proud to admit that. When we reduces taxes on corporations, the corporations will be more valuable.  When corporations are more valuable, their owners will benefit.  Who are the owners?  YOU ARE!

“If you have as much as one mutual fund, you have shares in probably many many corporations.

“Senator Obama loves to demonize the oil companies.  Why?  Oil is the lifeblood of our economy.  Who is happy about high gasoline prices?  Not you. Not me.  What would putting extra taxes on the oil companies accomplish?  It would raise their cost of doing business and decrease their value.  All this would to is make the price of a gallon of gasoline even higher and make the value of oil company stocks lower.  And who loses when oil company stocks go lower?  The owners of the oil companies.  And who are the owners of the oil companies?  YOU ARE!

“Yes, I want America’s corporations to flourish, including oil companies.  When our corporations flourish, the owners benefit. Who are the owners?  Everyone that has even one mutual fund, or a retirement plan, pension fund, IRA, education fund, or a simple nest egg.  Who are the owners?  YOU ARE!”