Good article on Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uncle Ben

New member
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
Full, unedited artile below:
----------------------------------------------
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity.

He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices, who will rule any restriction on it, unconstitutional.

He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.

His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction.

In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches.

His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
 
I think he's the best of the "viable" candidates and if he, like all, spoke what he truly believed he'd alienate some voters or, more importantly, the Mainstream Media will lambast them on their views.

Despite all of his flaws I strongly favor him over McCain and Clinton. I called it over a year ago: it will be Ron Paul or Obama... or the US as you and I know it is through. Well, it's already "through" in many regards and there is no guarantees that either Mr. Paul, Mr. Obama or "Mr. Chui" could correct things or divert the things that are planned. But we can surmise that the othet two are smitten with the Elitist NWO based upon their public track record. Only Mr. Paul has a public record that is near flawless; I don't think the Think Tanks and Congressrats would play well with Mr. Paul and I think they will resist Mr. Obama. Hell, they'd openly try to rub me out. :D I'd get them first, though. :rolleyes:
 
What are the reasons you approve of Obama over McCain?? (especially regarding gun control, unless that is not a big concern of yours)
 
I called it over a year ago: it will be Ron Paul or Obama... or the US as you and I know it is through.

Paul or Obama? What's the common factor other than both defended racist nutjobs?
 
Despite all of his flaws I strongly favor him over McCain and Clinton. I called it over a year ago: it will be Ron Paul or Obama... or the US as you and I know it is through.

Oh boy, another: "Only my candidate stands between us and THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!!!"

When you consider how many people seem to be looking for a Messiah instead of a President you have to wonder if America isn't ripe for another Hitler.
 
I got the article from the savetheguns.com email/newsletter, and copied it straight from there. I cannot say whether the article was featured in that newspaper or not, but it is unaltered.
 
Just seems like a biased and agenda driven smear job. I really do not see much substance to it at all.

The statement
Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
pretty much shows how poorly he is trying to cover his bias. This is nothing more than a thinnly veiled attack without basis or support.

I am all for challenging someone in a fair way but slander in a biased rag is not the way I would ever chose to go.
 
I'm not really happy with anyone running. Perhaps the best advice really is, don't talk about it. Do something rewarding, like teaching your pig to sing.
 
His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction.
They do?

And if he is, yay.

These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
San Francisco and Hollywood are just as American as any "Middle America" town and deserve just as much a say in the affairs of the country.
 
Despite all of his flaws I strongly favor him over McCain and Clinton.

You support a candidate that is on the record as supporting a national ban on concealed carry except for law enforcement and military? And you support that candidate on a board dedicated to firearms rights?
 
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

I really don't understand why people keep saying this. He is only a one-term senator. There is no way he has done more to advance liberalism than Ted Kennedy has in the 30 or so years he has been in the Senate.

Could someone explain to me how Obama is more liberal than Teddy Kennedy?
 
most liberal senator

I guess the author forgot to look at the voting records of all the Republicans over the last 20 years who have been demonised for some of thier liberal voting and support of issue against the party. But why should a reporter (if he actually is one) look at voting record when the can spew undocumented BS without being challenged.

We know Obama's record and it might not be what the RKBA movement needs. But at least the reporting of his record should be accurate and not total BS. The crap about Obama becoming homosexual is just a bit to much to read and retain any credibility for either the publication of the author.
 
Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
I'm missing something, this seems like a good article against Obama. Don't get me wrong, I am also. Can't think of a thing he's done worth while. I lived in Illinois when he was elected. True, I'm not crazy about anybody running this time, but Obama is right at the bottom of the pile.
 
toybox99615 said:
The crap about Obama becoming homosexual is just a bit to much to read and retain any credibility for either the publication of the author.

The only thing in this article dealing with hosexuality is this allegation:
His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction.
and, to me, this just says that he (Obama) is tending to favor legalization of homosexual marriage, not that he is becoming a homosexual.
 
I really don't care if he is black, white or purple. I don't care about his sexuality. I just want to live my life in peace and freedom. I think the dems call freedom "a boot on yer neck so you do what you are ordered to do or you get disposed of, in a humane manner".

Also, this "defeat the white enemies" rhetoric of his church concerns me although I could legally claim "native american ancestry" and what could I do with that?????
 
I thought you were a super-duper intel analyst skilled in the craft of verifying and validating information...
Gee, and I thought I just asked someone else to tell me where they found something.

Looks like it is something printed in the "opinions" section.
 
This is nothing more than a thinnly veiled attack without basis or support.

I am all for challenging someone in a fair way but slander in a biased rag is not the way I would ever chose to go.
Published works aren't slander, they're libel. :rolleyes: Besides opinion (you know, like an editorial) is considered a defense of a defamation claim (such as you made) throughout virtually the entire United States. Moreover, truthful statements or statements reasonably believed to be true, are also permissible under the law. I certainly think this author is making a reasonable assumption of Obama's political stance. You of course, don't have to agree with the assessment, but this articles' claims are far from unreasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top