Social Issues Must Be Part of the Campaign

Posted on February 24, 2012. Filed under: Abortion, Democrats, Freedom, global governance, Liberty, News Media, Obama, politics, science, Socialism, U.S. Government | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

It's a living human being.

It’s astonishing that Republicans can be so duped by their opponents in the Democrat Party and lame stream media.   The Dems make abortion and gay marriage the premiere issues of their campaigns, all the while telling the electorate that the GOP will lose if they so much as mention the same.  It is usually assumed that the Democrat positions are correct and the only viable stances while the GOP positions are shameful.  Yet, Republican voters still secretly harbor pro-life and anti-gay marriage values.   What is shameful about protecting living human babies from harm, suffering and death?!

While ashamed to admit their pro-life, anti-gay marriage beliefs in public, they make these the litmus test for selecting candidates!  Once they’ve anointed someone, they immediately muzzle their champion for fear of losing the election.  This suggests that Democrats have already won the debate and Republians are wimps.

But that’s not the case.  Democrats have used the media to brow beat, excoriate, attack without merit, lie, exagerate and vilify anyone who dares to hold a different set of values from them.  They’ve successfully used mob tactics to intimidate into compliance.  Al Capone would be proud.

In the light of truth, there is no way that people can be against protecting the life of human beings.  The U.N. claims it’s existence for that very purpose – “no more wars.”  Doctors, nurses and hospitals exist to save life.  The Health Movement’s platform is to protect and preserve human life.  Pre-natal care is pushed to preserve and protect the life of the unborn baby.  The government has a watchdog agency charged with insuring that products used with, for and around human babies are completely safe.

Now why is the pro-life position unpopular in America and something to keep quiet about in a campaign?  Which party should be ashamed of their values or lack thereof?  The GOP candidates should make the Democrats ashamed of their murderous cold-blooded life-snuffing position in every campaign.  GOP candidates should stand tall and firm, heads held high and confidently proclaim Democrats as heartless.  They should point out that pregnant women who prefer to murder their own innocent babies are self-centered and irresponsible.

Let the Democrats yell and scream.  They will look like spoiled brats throwing temper tantrums.  GOP will look like the mature adults with common sense.

To say that social issues do not belong in politics ignores  the fact that politics is all about governing society and the government absolutely does interfere in and exert control over social issues, therefore, must be part of any political campaign. It’s time Republicans realize what the Democrats have perpetrated on their party and get over it. They must stop cowering and fight for the beliefs of their party. Show how and why the GOP is the opposite of the Democrat Party. Isn’t that the purpose of campaigns? It’s all common sense.

What’s the best way to go about killing this little baby?

There is NO way. Could you kill this baby?  Could you support killing this baby?  Can you support candidates who are determined to continue the legality of killing babies?  And what about botched abortions?  Could you support killing the baby after it’s born, if the doctor was unsuccessful in his first attempt at murder?  Not only did Sen. Obama of Illinois support such barbaric behavior, he was the only one who voted to protect it, when the rest of his party voted to end it. He voted three times to protect this murder of living infants.  Live birth abortions =  Murdering babies after they’re born and alive.

Can you support this or a candidate who did?  I CAN’T!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Scott Brown for President? Not So Fast.

Posted on January 20, 2010. Filed under: 2010 election, Health Care | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

After last night’s election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the throne held by Teddy Kennedy for decades, thoughts turned immediately to Scott Brown’s potential to win the presidency.  That’s not a well-thought-out reaction.  Scott Brown was the one who took on the challenge and won, but not necessarily because he is a great Republican or even a great moral man.  Most of us in the U.S. know nothing about him. 

In the past, people got excited about Colin Powell and begged him to run for president as the Republican candidate before they knew much about his political beliefs or even his party affiliation.  He was a handsome, well-educated, well-spoken four-star general who became very popular.  As it turned out, he affiliated with the Republican Party, but was very left-leaning and moderate, opposing some of the Party’s platform, which is not helpful to achieving those goals.  Eventually, he publicly endorsed the Democrat candidate for president over his own long-time friend and fellow veteran, Sen. John McCain.

In a “morning-after” interview aired on Fox News, Brown was asked if he favored the “big tent” theory for the Republican Party and he made it clear that he does.   Others who have advocated this position are; Colin Powell, who voted for the Democrat in the presidential election, abandoning his own Republican party; John McCain, who lost the election because of Republicans like Colin Powell who voted against his own party; former Congressman Christopher Shays, who was defeated by the Democrat he wanted to compromise with, perhaps because there was no clear difference between the candidates; and former Sen. Jim Jeffords, who eventually left the Republican party and caucused with the Democrats.  There are many others; some who are still in the Grand Old Party.  Watch those still in the GOP and see if they lose their elections, leave the Party and/or vote with the Democrats.

The moral is, either you’re a Republican or you’re not.  The Party has a platform – goals they are working to achieve.  If you’re advocating “not” achieving those goals, why are you a Republican?  Join the Party because you share their beliefs, not for the purpose of weakening their ability to accomplish their stated (and voted on) platform goals.  If you don’t share those beliefs, you’re in the wrong party.

Some have championed the virtue of “compromise”.  You should compromise when you’re out with friends and some want to eat Mexican food, while others want Italian food.  You should never compromise on your core values, your moral values, your principles.  You should never sell your values for some benefit, which politicians seem to do often.  The consequences of compromising your core beliefs are, more often than not, very damaging to people and to the country. 

Let’s take a wait and see attitude towards today’s winner, Scott Brown.  I’m glad he won because he wants to stop the current health care debacle bill and he was our last chance for that.  But President?  Not so fast,

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama, by Someone Who Really Knows Him – March 04, 2008

Posted on March 5, 2008. Filed under: Democrats, Obama, Obama's Associates & Appointees, Political, politics, Uncategorized, Who Is Obama? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Todd Spivak is a reporter who has known Obama since 2000 and watched his rise from obscure to Democratic Presidential hopeful and rock star in just eight years. His article is posted on the web site of the HoustonPress. He talks about being stuck in traffic on the Southwest Freeway in Houston and remembering when he first met Obama.

I did not write the following. I’m taking it from Spivak’s own account. I’ve shortened sentences, paraphrased when necessary, left out a whole lot and put in just enough so that you get the picture. It would be beneficial to read the entire article.

Some key moments are:

“During his seven year tenure in the Illinois Legislature, Obama wrote an occasional column for the Lakefront Outlook community newspaper where I worked. In 2004, during his U.S. Senate bid, I profiled Obama for the Illinois Times.” Todd Spivak

Spivak was a young struggling reporter and Obama was a rookie state senator making about $50,000 a year living in a small condo just two blocks away from Spivak.

When Obama is asked now about his legislative record he rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker. He expanded children’s health insurance; made the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable for low-income families; required public bodies to tape closed-door meetings to make government more transparent; and required police to videotape interrogations of homicide suspects. And the list goes on – a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues.

But what’s interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year. During six of Obama’s seven year tenure in the Illinois Senate, it was controlled by Republicans. Each of those six years, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere. But in his seventh year, the Republican Majority Leader had been replaced with Emil Jones, Jr., a “gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor. Jones had served for three decades and represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama’s. He became Obama’s kingmaker.

Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman, and told him he was going to make Obama a U.S. Senator.” And he did. Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

“I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me (Spivak) at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit”.

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama’s stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law – including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunnning achievement that started him on the path of national politics – and he couldn’t have done it without Jones.

Jones further helped raise Obama’s profile by having him craft legislation addressing the day-to-day tragedies that dominated local news headlines.

So how has Obama repaid Jones? Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised MORE THAN $300 MILLION IN PET PROJECTS FOR ILLINOIS, INCLUDING TENS OF MILLIONS FOR JONES’ SENATE DISTRICT.

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990’s, when he passed on six figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive. But as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders. Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was “just a big-eared kid fresh out of school”, says he didn’t finally decide to support Obama’s presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday. “I’m not happy about the quality of life in my community,” says Lucas, who now heads a black-heritage tourism business in Chicago. “As a local elected official, he had a primary role in that.”

When the city seized by eminent domain, the 70-year-old Gerri’s Palm Tavern, a historic jazz club that regularly hosted Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker and many others, and forced the Checkerboard Lounge, regularly featuring B.B. King and the like, to re-locate, Obama was silent. Obama’s aloofness on key community issues for years frustrated Lucas and many other South Siders. They believe he was just afraid of making politcal enemies.

Obama inflamed many residents in his old state Senate district last March when he endorsed controversial Chicago alderman Dorothy Tillman in a runoff election. She is best known for once pulling a pistol from her purse and brandishing it around at a city council meeting. Her ward comprised the city’s largest concentration of vacant lots. Just three months before Obama endorsed her, the Lakefront Outlook, a community newspaper ran a three-part investigative series exposing flagrant cronyism and possible tax law violations that centered on Tillman and her biggest pet project. Tillman lost the election despite Obama’s endorsement, which critics said countered his calls for clean government. He told the Chicago Tribune that he had backed Tillman because she was an early supporter of his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

This was not a wise decision. It was poor judgment on his part. He was operating like a politician trying to win the next step up.” says Timuel Black, a historian and City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus who lived in Obama’s state Senate district. Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position. Even many of his staunchist supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates. He found enough flaws to knock them all off and run unopposed. Of course, he won. “A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career,” wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long.

Three years later, in September 1999, Obama was preparing for his first national campaign. He ran for U.S. Congress against the veteran incumbent Bobby Rush, a former co-founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. Rush won by more than 30 percentage points.

Three years later, January 2003, Obama ran for U.S. Senate and cruised to victory thanks to the self-desctruction of his top opponents in both the primary and general elections. The front-runner’s campaign in the primary imploded when his divorce files were unsealed, revealing an ex-wife’s charges of verbal and physical abuse. Obama unleashed a barrage of television ads just before the election, when the other candidates had largely depleted their war chests. He won the nomination. The general election was a repeat performance. Obama’s opponent, Jack Ryan dropped out after a judge ordered that his divorce files be unsealed. Obama spent several weeks running unopposed while Republicans tried to find a new candidate. They finally put up Alan Keyes, whose bombastic rhetoric wasn’t popular. Obama won.

“He’s been given a pass,” says Harold Lucas. “His career has been such a meteoric rise that he has not had the time to set a record.”

A week after my (Spivak) profile of Obama was published, I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama, and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election. “Anybody but Obama”, the late state Rep. Lovana Jones told me at the time. State Rep. Monique Davis attended the same church as Obama and co-sponsored several bills with him, also did not support him. “I was snubbed,” Davis told me. “I felt he was shutting me out of history.”

In a follow-up report published a couple of weeks later, I wrote about these disgruntled black legislators and the central role Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. played in Obama’s revived political life. The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my offices. I hadn’t taken my coat off when the phone rang. It was Obama.

(This conversation you must read for yourself on page 5, the final page of the article.) In a nutshell, Obama wasn’t happy.

If this reporter is telling the truth, then we get a new picture of the real Barak Obama. If he isn’t telling the truth, he will be found out because he names many people who could refute this story.

Just thought you ought to know about this new rock star.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...