TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

Time is running short to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster’s name is President Barack Obama. But this disaster can be averted – even though the slanted media are overstating Obama’s inevitability.

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country. We will either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace – or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.

Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president – he is a dangerous one.

The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states. Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put a socialist in the White House.

In the closing weeks of this election, Obama is trying to remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters. He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party. Remember his 100% liberal rating in Congress, his support for the total gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.

He also supports giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses and almost all Americans agree that Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.

Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license? Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote – and they were illegal. What about the 20 million illegal aliens in America right now? How many of them will vote anyway?

Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses. Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan. Obama’s position is not a new one. Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator. There is no doubt that Obama will also champion this radical plan.

With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities – biological, chemical, and nuclear – can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?

Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered. Or, does he just not care?

You can prevent that from happening just by the way you vote.

Last Wednesday night’s debate introduced America to “Joe the Plumber.” While Joe is an actual person who is working hard to make ends meet, he represents more than just being a plumber. “Joe” represents a fundamental difference between what we believe conservatives and socialists want for our country.

When Joe asked Barack Obama about how he was going to have his taxes raised under Obama’s Tax Plan, Senator Obama responded: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Do you see Obama spreading his wealth around?

After asking this simple question that challenged Obama suddenly everything about him was being checked out by behind the scenes “officials” and of course the Obama Media Team, most of the public media that are in Obama’s pocket.

I think Joe responded for all of us when he said: “It’s not right for someone to decide you made too much – that you’ve done too good and now we’re going to take some of it back.” This is your punishment for working harder than someone else … take your money and give it to those who don’t work or don’t work as hard as you.

Simply put, Barack Obama believes Americans should pay more taxes to pay for more liberal programs – which are for the most part socialism. Obama believes we should take more money from hard working Americans to pay for programs supported by the socialist left wing of his party.

It’s outrageous, and no wonder Joe said that Obama’s Tax Plan “infuriates me.” We should all be infuriated!

If Democrats win this election socialist will have control of the White House, the Senate and the House. You see Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and most other Democrats are not just liberals they have moved to the far left into socialists.

Be assured that if this happens, they will take more of our hard earned money and “spread the wealth around” as Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber. Remember their mindset is redistribute the wealth … let big brother spend your hard earned money, trust them to do that better than you can.

Election Day is fast approaching – don’t let this happen. Voting Republican is not perfect but it is a whole lot safer than voting Socialist.

Democrats assume Republicans are raising Obama’s many questionable relationships in a desperation effort to salvage the election. You might think this is splitting hairs, but I believe the reason is that these relationships scare the daylights out of us.

Conservatives were very much opposed to Bill Clinton for myriad reasons, but with decades in elective office in Arkansas, at least he wasn’t a stealth candidate. Though rumors and mysteries abounded, Clinton was hardly a blank slate who emerged out of nowhere.

Obama is different. He burst onto the political scene and has risen with such alacrity that even many of his supporters don’t have a clue what he’s about or where he would take America.

It’s no wonder the conspiracy types are whispering that he’s the Manchurian candidate. It’s not as if he’s embracing his past; he’s concealing it, and for good reason. People have a right to know just how radical this man is because America’s destiny is in the balance.

In the past I have been confident that no matter which party is in power, it can only do so much damage in four years because of the ingenious safeguards our Constitution contains to preserve the essential structure of government that maximizes individual liberty. But I admit I’m more concerned today.

We need to remember that the Constitution is only as reliable as the moral fiber of the people from which it derives its power and their commitment to good (and limited) government. That’s why John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.“

I’m not just worried that Obama will appoint leftist activist judges who will continue to rewrite the Constitution. It’s that he wants to socialize health care, initiate a massive transfer of wealth via the Global Poverty Act and would intervene in foreign conflicts solely for humanitarian reasons when our national interests are not at stake. He obviously regards the tax code as a license to punish wealth and equalize incomes in the name of “fairness” rather than a means to raise revenue for essential government services.

Then there’s the pervasive climate of financial fear today and the potential usurpation of power by the next president. We’ve seen oil prices rise to panic levels. But oil concerns have been dwarfed by the global financial crisis, which has led Congress to delegate nearly carte blanche authority to the executive branch to navigate through it. The character and ideology of the person who occupies the Oval Office have never been more important.

As if all this weren’t enough to culminate in a perfect storm for the next president to transform our system fundamentally, there’s also an alarming atmosphere among many Obama supporters. They follow him in a cult-like trance, having no clue what he stands for or what policies and changes he will implement once in office.

Disturbingly, Obama’s candidacy is inspiring certain youths to perform paramilitary drills in his honor, public officials to threaten criminal prosecution of those who criticize him, and attorneys purporting to be working for his campaign systematically to intimidate local election officials. With this mentality, is there any doubt the Obamaites would try to shut down conservative talk radio with the “Fairness Doctrine”?

Then there’s the corrupt ACORN (under investigation in at least 10 states for possible voter fraud), which is terrorizing the electoral process with such a widespread assault that it truly threatens the integrity of this election. Where does Obama fit into all of this? Was he a key lawyer for ACORN, as alleged? What about his alliances with anti-American leftist radicals?

I disagree with those who have said the most important issue concerning the Obama-Ayers connection is Obama’s “judgment.” The crucial question is whether Obama is of like mind with such radicals. He has spent much time with a number of radicals.

National Review Online’s Andy McCarthy reports that when Ayers “was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama – with whom he worked closely on ‘change’ in the schools for five years.”

And how about Obama’s membership in the New Party, a radical leftist organization established in 1992 to push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left, as reported by the American Thinker? Is it not imperative we learn the extent of this relationship and why Obama is trying to cover it up?

Does anyone doubt that if any Republican presidential candidate had a small fraction of the questionable alliances Obama has, he already would have been hounded into withdrawing from the race? Why are so many afraid of this man? Why does he hide his activities and affiliations during his collegiate years?

Someone used similar political tactics in 1933 against the Jews in Germany to establish his dictatorship. Too many questions about Obama’s background remain to be answered and the American people, should they vote him into office, will lose liberties, ideals and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

This election is about placing the most qualified person in the Presidency; without transparency and willful disclosure, how can we trust Obama to make decisions for us and our country?

“Spread the wealth around.” – Obama to Joe the Plumber

In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist slant, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.

Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama’s hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president. They only see the figurehead of a president to hang the blame on as opposed to a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that are highly responsible for this situation.

Maybe I’m being too much of an alarmist, but I’m worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama’s socialism, such is their angst at the subprime mortgage mess.

Already some 38% of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to “working-class” people when many of the constituents voting for them aren’t working. How the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.

Do you suppose it has registered with Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don’t aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?

Obama let slip his socialist mind to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama’s cavalier attitude toward the American dream.

Democratic commentator Bob Beckel was dismissive of the significance of Obama’s outright nod to socialism, saying we’ve had a progressive tax system since the income tax was initiated. But what Beckel did not explain is that at least in those days, the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.

It’s one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others. But he hasn’t been so open about that in the presentation of his fraudulent tax plan.

When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95% of Americans, he is dissembling. If 38% are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfer payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as The Wall Street Journal editors have noted.

Socialists and liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can’t change it. Human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working middle class, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we’re talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.

How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work. Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the truism that people produce less when they aren’t allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie.

We know from the writings of William Bradford that the Pilgrims learned this lesson the hard way when they tried a communal system of sharing, thinking it “would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Instead, “This community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” Men refused to “work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense; … this was thought injustice.”

Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they have been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as Barak Obama and William Ayers, still insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of “fairness.”

Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn’t been given a real chance. Well, if Obama is elected, look out, we will get that chance. Remember, if Obama wins he has total control of America with all those socialist and pork barrel bills stacked up and waiting for him from the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate!

The wolf will be in the henhouse!

Sen. Barack Obama “is lying” when he insists that he has never prayed in a mosque and was never a Muslim, a prominent Middle East expert and journalist says.

Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, says there is strong evidence that Obama received a Muslim upbringing during his years in Indonesia. Pipes say, “What I have a problem with is that he’s lying when he says he was never a Muslim.

Pipes said, “It would start with the fact that his father was a Muslim. In the Muslim world, if your father is a Muslim, you’re a Muslim. His father named him Hussein, which is a name only given to Muslim babies. He went with his stepfather to a mosque. They celebrated certain Muslim holidays at the mosque together. He had knowledge of the Koran. He had knowledge of Muslim prayers. You put all this together, he was a Muslim.”

A November 12 post on Obama’s Web site headlined, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim,” and stated: “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim.” The current post includes links intended to debunk any Muslim connection.

Several media outlets, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, have reported on Obama’s schooling in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971, which included Muslim religious studies. Obama was grouped with Muslim students at the school and engaged in weekly religious studies, including studying the Koran and learning Muslim prayers.

In 1970, Obama’s family moved and he was enrolled in a public school where children such as Obama who were identified as Muslim spent two hours a week studying Islam. His former teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama’s grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.

It is a fact in Islam that the religion passes on through the father, and yet it’s denied as a falsehood by people who know better. It’s Islam 101.

Supporting that point is Shireen K. Burki, an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. Burki, who spent her childhood studying Islam at a school in Islamabad, Pakistan, has first-hand experience as the daughter of a Muslim father and a Christian mother. “According to Islamic jurisprudence,” she wrote in a May article in the Christian Science Monitor, “children of a Muslim father … are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.”

This clearly shows that Obama was raised as a Muslim while he lived in Indonesia, and a whopping double standard in how the mainstream media has reported on Obama’s past.

It’s been quite intriguing to watch the careful picking over of Sarah Palin’s record, down to her library policies as mayor of Wasilla, and her possible false pregnancies, and so forth, an analysis that involved excruciating details in her case, contrasted to the “the general pass” the media has given Obama, whether over his career in the Illinois Senate, the Annenberg library papers, or his upbringing in Jakarta.

Even the McCain campaign “has been very cautious about looking into Barack Obama at all, and the GOP has demonstrated a general reluctance to raise questions about Obama’s past. Why? They would for anyone else!

Why is it so “hands off” when it comes to Obama while there is so much that is being hidden and undisclosed about his life?

When issue after issue are examined there is but one thought … Democrats seem to always support policies that weaken America while opposing policies that would strengthen her. Democrats consistently choose the policy that would most hurt America. Using this standard it is easy to predict which position Democrats will take on a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues.

Policies Democrats Oppose that would strengthen America:

• Drilling for oil
• Nuclear power
• Lower Taxes
• Making Life Difficult for terrorists
• Anti-Missile Defense
• Teacher-control of the classroom
• School Choice
• Photo ID when voting
• Protect the borders
• Environmental policies that put people first
• Strong military

In the 1990s Democrats supported policies that would strong arm banks into giving mortgages to underprivileged people so they could buy homes. These people had little ability to pay back the loans and traditionally would have been considered bad credit risks. But through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration assured the banks that was no problem.

When a bank makes a mortgage loan these quasi-governmental agencies purchase the loan, providing liquidity to the banking system and making it possible for the banks to turn around and make more mortgage loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directed by the Clinton administration to purchase these bad mortgages from the banks making them and to implement policies to pressure the banks to “liberalize” their lending standards so less credit worthy individuals would qualify for mortgages.

The stated intention was to make home ownership possible for more people. However, conservatives at the time often pointed out that this would eventually come back to haunt us as the less than credit-worthy borrowers defaulted and the taxpayer would have to bail everyone out.

That is exactly what has happened and we are now seeing the devastation these policies have wreaked on the economy. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch are either bailed out, bankrupted or bought out. And the closure of those banks is reverberating throughout the economy and around the world. There is no doubt now that the policies followed by the Democratic Clinton administration are responsible for the economic devastation we are currently witnessing.

Now let’s look at oil. Following the theory that Democrats support policies that weaken America, you will correctly predict that Democrats will be against drilling domestically for oil. Why? Because drilling for oil would strengthen America and not drilling weakens it. Relying on political enemies for our most critical natural resource is a suicidal position especially in light of the fact that our reliance is caused solely for political reasons. Our reliance on our enemies is not caused because we lack the resources. In fact, we have enough unrecovered oil reserves to supply 100% of our needs for another 251 years!

For whatever seductive words Democrats use to explain their radical position that America not be allowed to mine its own natural resources, the result is predictable. Americans are now paying record prices at the pump and it’s putting a crimp in many a budget. Democratic energy policy has weakened America.

You can go right down the line on issue after issue after issue, and see that Democrats consistently oppose policies that would make America stronger and support policies that would make her weaker.

You should be asking by now, why would Democrats want to hurt America? The reasons are deep and complex, but there is substantial evidence to suggest that the ruling members of the Democratic Party do not have America’s best interest at heart.

First, a quick look at Barack Obama and his friends, pastor, wife and associates. (This can all be goggled but don’t expect to see the liberal media outlets to do much if anything with it.) But suffice it to say he associates with many people who have been quite outspoken about their disdain for America – including his wife. The closest people in Obama’s life have said terrible things about America. His pastor said America deserved 9/11. Obama first reacted to this by saying he didn’t believe his pastor had said anything that controversial. His wife says she has never before in her adult life been proud of America.

He associates and has been befriended by Bill Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist. He has the support of Louis Farrakhan (a Jew-hating anti-American), and he has the publicly-declared support of the Middle Eastern terrorist group Hamas.

Obama says it’s not fair to judge a candidate for president on those who support them. But whether or not that is true, one must ask, why do so many people who want to destroy America support Obama? What is it they see in him that engenders their support?

The Left in America, as the Left around the world has one thing in common with these people – they all believe the world would be better off without America in it. And here we come to the crux of the issue. If you believe the world would be better off without America’s influence in it – as many on the far Left do, then what is the easiest way to stop America from spreading its influence? You can’t attack America militarily and simply get rid of it. No, the easiest way to stop America’s influence in the world is to simply weaken America economically, morally and militarily. Weaken her economically so she no longer has the financial resources to spread her influence around the world. (Democrats almost always support economic policies that weaken America because they have become practicing socialists.). Weaken her morally so she no longer has the spiritual resolve to influence the world for the better. And weaken her militarily so she can’t use physical might to spread her influence. (Democrats, including Obama have called for a weaker American military and they have called for surrender in Iraq).

It should be no surprise because the Democratic Party has been taken over by the far Left wing of socialism even though they would deny it … look up the definition of socialism. And once you understand what the Left really believes and the more you understand the positions of the Democratic Party. Once you begin to understand their true disdain for the role America has played historically in the world, you will begin to understand that they do want a weakened America. Once you understand their true loathing of the influence America has around the world, you will begin to understand that they do wish to clip America’s wings.

It may sound far-fetched, but it’s the only theory that is always consistent with Democrats’ actions. You can almost predict what stand they’re going to take on any given issue simply by figuring out which stand would most weaken America.

• Does it weaken America to prohibit the use of our own natural resources? Yes, and Democrats prohibit it.
• Does it weaken America to demand that banks loosen their lending standards so minorities can get mortgages? Yes, and Democrats demanded it – and we are now suffering greatly from their actions – to the tune of a $850 billion bailout passed in Congress that has a Democrat majority.
• Is it suicidal to oppose a defense system that would protect the American population against incoming cruise missiles? Of course! And Democrats oppose it!
• Would it hurt America if we had pulled completely out of Iraq last March as Barack Obama originally insisted on? Of course. Because we stayed, we are now on the verge of having a strong ally in the Middle East. If Democrats had had their way America would have lost what now promises to be a new and brighter future in the Middle East.

Palin’s Pipeline Counters Natural-Gas Cartel

With Russia and Iran seeking to form a natural gas cartel along the lines of OPEC, one project will likely insulate the U.S. against higher gas prices – the $40 billion pipeline Gov. Sarah Palin pushed through in Alaska.

“If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse,” Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) stated in an editorial.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin last year said “a gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently drew up the proposed organization’s charter, which he will soon take to Moscow.

Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum will first seek to gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 nations, including Venezuela, with an ultimate goal of controlling production. That will kill competition and “bodes ill for the global gas market,” according to IBD.

As of now, the U.S. is fairly self-sufficient in natural gas. Demand is certain to increase, but “Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early” with her 1,715-mile pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas to the lower 48 states – almost one-fifth of projected needs – within a decade, the editorial discloses.

“Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska Statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August,” IBD noted.

“Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.”