Thread: Vetting Obama-Your Right To Know

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Now, if one wants to score campaign points, fine, but we're in the same choir. Let's bring real stuff to the table, not stuff with holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. Issues, issues.

He voted down a bankruptcy bill that could have brought relief to consumers at a capped interest rate of 28%; He voted down a bill to leave alive aborted babies on a bathroom floor to die to avoid prosecution of physicians; He voted for Cheney's energy bill that included tax breaks for oil companies because it had clean energy incentives in it, and blames McCain for it; he's making people "work" for their free tickets to the DNC convention, so does that mean his $1,000 rebate check will also have a string attached to it? Probably.

Obama's positions has not been for middle America, but corporate America. Am I the only one that sees this?

On the horizon:

While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels. Collier further speculated Pelosi's investment partnership with Pickens will profit them both.

Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

Now, this goes waaaaayyy deeper, but this just a snippet. There is only one Presidential candidate that can pull this off for Pelosi. So when Pelosi or Obama claim they are open to domestic drilling....they are bold face lying....they are just buying time until after the election.

Obama says that - unlike George Bush and the other candidates for president, he would pursue unconditional talks with leaders of rogue regimes. As time passed, Obama proceeded to tack on so many stipulations to his “precondition-free” talks that his policy was no different than anyone else’s.

But he still claimed his policy was better.

Obama said that Iran wasn’t a serious threat to the United States, but was forced as the sheer ridiculousness of his position was revealed to acknowledge that it was in fact “a grave threat.”

But he still maintained his position never changed, and he had been right along.

Obama said that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel to Jewish groups, and then said to Palestinians that the issue of Jerusalem would be subject to negotiation.

But he maintained that his position was “no shift in policy.”

Obama opposed the surge strategy in Iraq, arguing it would lead to more sectarian violence and result in more American deaths. In the face of overwhelming evidence that he was wrong - with even al Qaeda acknowledging its defeat - Obama had his campaign scrub his worst criticisms from his website and began to “evolve” his position on Iraq without ever acknowledging that he had changed.

Barack Obama maintains that he “never has doubts about his foreign policy experience.” Never. That’s why he can ignore the advice of General David Petraeus and other military experts.

The pattern continues merrily along: when Russia invaded Georgia, Barack Obama offered a neutral, insipid statement calling for both sides to restrain themselves. John McCain immediately issued a sharply-worded message that condemned the Russian invasion of a democratic government and ally. As the days, the war, and the death and destruction, dragged on, Obama began to issue increasing criticism of Russia (you know, like McCain had immediately done). McCain appeared prescient; Obama appeared ignorant.

Barack Obama was taken to school in foreign policy yet again. But like a pretentious child, he can’t see it or admit it. Hence his campaign came up with this beauty via a senior adviser:

Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Tuesday night, accused McCain of responding irresponsibly. “Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach,” she said. “We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation.”

In other words, McCain should have taken “the nuanced” and “measured” initial position Obama did and call on Georgia to “restrain” itself as Russian tanks started rolling through its streets.

John McCain “shot from the hip” with a “very aggressive, belligerent statement” that “may (or may not) have complicated the situation”? When McCain’s assessment was right-on target and Obama’s was pathetically weak?

America needs to take a long, hard look at Barack Obama and conclude that it needs an experienced adult to make good decisions - not a pretentious child who is pathologically incapable of dealing with his limitations and inadequacies.

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Julie, you are doing a wonderful job here. Lots of compelling info you are bringing up. Thanks.

Thank you.

Would any of our Catholic WABers care to comment on Buchanan's article from yesterday? Especially the part at the end concerning automatic excommunication? I'm a bit out of my depth there not being a Catholic.

Thanks.



A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 08/12/2008 ET

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:

"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."


In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.


Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

So what was it and why didn't he say? IMO, he's just that damned liberal! Its not that he wants to kill babies, he just doesn't want to infringe on the mother killing her baby! Notice I didn't say the mother's right to kill her baby. Now if we are going pass a law that says we can kill because you inconvenience me, well I'm all for that. God help the next person that inconveniences me.

Oh, come on - this is the same kind of extreme reframing that lefties do to change "support for traditional marriage" into "homophobia".

We can dismantle the proposal on its merits or detriments, surely.

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

But I want to know the other side's view. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, or maybe aspects of their view are being misstated. People are generally too impatient to look for the truth when their minds are made up.

There are anywhere from 10-13% undecideds in each state, that include alot of women who would like the truth as well. I agree with you that there is something else behind the voting of that bill, but the question is what?....and how do we find it?