Militantly and Radically Pro-Abortion

Barack Obama cannot win on the economy.  So he is shooting the moon and betting it all on social issues.  The problem is that most Democrats are not as militantly pro-abortion as Obama is.  In his testimony before the Illinois senate, Obama delineated between a child and a pre-viable fetus.  What was his delineation?  “A child, a nine month old child, that was delivered to term”.  Are you paying attention, preemies? You were not a human being entitled to human rights (nevermind constitutional rights) until you reached that magical 9 months.  What is not a child in Barack Obama’s mind?  “A fetus, or a child as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb” (speaking of a child who survived an abortion).

Do most Democrats actually believe that a baby is not a child until it is nine months old and has been delivered?  Is a baby born at 8 months really still part of its mother’s body??  If you are a pro-choice Democrat, or even consider yourself pro-abortion, are you this militantly radical?

In 2002 when Born Alive passed the House and Senate and was signed into federal law, the Senate unanimously supported it.  Obama was not in the Senate at the time.  But when the Illinois Senate voted on Born Alive, Obama opposed it four times.  Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Patty Murray, and other canonized saints of liberalism voted for Born Alive, but Obama opposed it.  It is unthinkable that the President of the United States believes that babies born alive and completely outside of the mother’s womb should be left alone to die or be killed at the hands of another doctor because they survived the brutality of an abortion execution, but this is what our President believes.

Melissa Ohden is an abortion survivor in a powerful new Susan B. Anthony List ad that challenges Obama on Born Alive.  Ohden is one that Obama tried to sentence to death with his militantly pro-abortion views.  Will Obama voters be able to look Melissa Ohden in the eyes and tell her that women’s rights means her death?  Thank goodness Melissa Ohden has passed the magical 9 months requirement to be a living human being!

Obama’s war on the unborn will lose him independent votes if Republicans are not afraid to point it out.  One of Obama’s first acts in office was reversing the Mexico City Policy, which had been put in place to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions overseas.  With Obamacare, despite all his promises that it wouldn’t, taxpayers are forced to fund abortion regardless of conscience or religion.  I wonder if Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson ever feel guilty for how cheaply they sold the unborn when they gave Obama their votes on Obamacare in exchange for government kickbacks.

Barack Obama is far too radical for his own party on abortion.  He is far too radical for independents too.  Pro-lifers must focus on Obama’s militant radicalism and highlight it from now to the election.  And Democrats must ask themselves, even if they are pro-abortion, if the living breathing newborn baby was in their hands after a botched abortion, would they kill the baby or leave him or her in a medical waste trashcan to die?  Would you?  Obama thinks he would.

Advertisements

Ms Information

The left will say anything to win in 2012, even if it is verifiably false.  The latest example comes from the attempts by the left to woo the Jewish vote, even after embracing a disastrous foreign policy that has left anti-Israel coalitions in charge of Egypt and threatening to take over Syria.  Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the Jewish vote claimed that Republicans were exploiting them and that President Obama has “visited Israel over and over”.  This, of course, is not true.  In fact, as President, Obama has never visited Israel.

The administration has embraced a strategy of generally influencing public opinion.  They have no policies to run on and facts are not on their side.  However, they have written off both.  Obama’s claims regarding Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital have been proven to be false.  Yet, Obama continues to follow that line of attack with hopes that the negativity towards Romney will influence and control public sentiment.

Obama has also predictably tried to convince people that he is a tax cutter and Romney would increase taxes.  This is laughable considering simply the taxes in Obamacare alone.  Nevermind that Obama wants to raise taxes for people making over $200,000 by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and the Democrat party has signaled they are ready to raise taxes across the board if that’s what it would take to get the tax hikes they want.  Obama is running as a tax cutter because the tax hikes he has already passed don’t go into effect until next year.  These include a poor tax on people who can’t afford health insurance.

Obama has fought furiously to backtrack and redo what he said about business owners not building their own businesses.  He claims that his words were taken out of context and what he really meant is that he wants to help business owners build their businesses.  Again, verifiably false but he says it anyway in order to influence public sentiment.

At times, Obama is even contradicting himself.  After the Colorado shooting, Obama told the Urban League that he would leave no stone unturned in finding ways to prevent another incident like this and suggested “common sense” gun control measures.  At the same time, fearing 2nd amendment supporters, the Whitehouse swore that they would not be pushing new gun control laws.  Incidentally, the Democrats then attempted to stick gun control measures into a cyber security bill.  Obama should take a lesson from John Kerry: pandering can backfire when both sides find out about it.

Pelosi and Obama are sure to discover this as they try to pander to Jewish voters while working on their anti-Israel base.  It’s going to be difficult to keep playing both sides of the fence, especially when gestures like increasing funding to Israel right before Romney’s visit come across as merely political.

The Hidden Battle For America

Bookmark and Share  By now you’ve probably heard the United Nations issued a proposal last Thursday for a Billionaire’s Tax. If you haven’t heard, bundled within the proposal are taxes that will affect us, the common folk. But the Left can’t run headlines like “UN Calls For Middle-class America To Fund The World” can they? The semi-secret movement would end in a weekend. But make no mistake, this is yet another forced charity proposal to save humankind — at the expense of the American taxpayer.

It may appear to be a righteous pursuit and that is what the Left wants you to believe. Of course, this is merely illusion. Certainly contributing to your local church to help those in need is a noble effort. But shifting truly vast sums of money between countries via mandatory international taxes will only lead to obscene levels of corruption. How many well intentioned acts of charity have gone bad? Everyone has heard of the charity that pockets 80-cents of every dollar or that secretly diverts the money into someone’s pocket. California, offering to send money from custom license plates fees to victims of 9/11, was recently discovered actually funding other pursuits, giving just 1.5% of the cash to the beneficiaries. And we’ve all heard of war-lords leaving food for the oppressed on the docks to spoil. Allow yourself to contemplate a world cash swap based upon international taxes — what would ultimately become routine transactions — and the corruption scenarios become mind-bending.

As a practical matter, funding the world is a poorly conceived idea. It makes no sense. If you take a meal designed for one and split it among three adults, you don’t get three well-fed people. You end up with three under-fed people rather than two. The re-distribution of money works the same way.

And think of the administrative nightmare. In order to implement international taxes a centralized financial bureaucracy would need to be constructed to handle the collections, payouts and bookkeeping. To think the corrupt won’t drop their buckets into that river of money is beyond naive. Further, the only way to avoid one country funding a sworn enemy would be to have all countries under one umbrella, managed by pre-selected politicians that know where their bread is buttered.

But that is the ultimate point, isn’t it? This movement has nothing to do with going green or feeding the hungry. Those are political lies to mask the creation of a major financial bureaucracy, an international control mechanism, to support the transition to a one world government.

Is the thought so outrageous? Simply sell it to the peasants as helping all of humankind. Governments start the money flowing. From your centralized bureaucracy you dangle the dough and propose your terms — cash for allegiance. Here in America, our federal government does the exact same thing to the states — ‘if you want highway money, then enforce this law’. The international community, when united, applies the same principle, we call them economic sanctions. Once the cash for allegiance terms are proposed, countries that comply get to make a deposit and come under the umbrella of control, those that don’t are politically isolated and left to rot. Over time, and plenty of economic hardship, leadership will arise in these rebellious countries that will take the cash or, if necessary, these weakened rebels can be absorbed by force. (continued)

Crusaders, this goes beyond the recent Billionaire Tax and it’s fine print attachments. This movement is a 20, perhaps 30-year quest by the Left. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would force America to give away taxes and technology. And America would have no control over to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed. The Small Arms Treaty is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and designed to strip America of her guns. These are pressing issues. Just last month, Fox reported the Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21), proposed over $2 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, conveniently sold as funding “green infrastructure,” and “climate adaptation”. This is global Socialism. They also proposed new carbon taxes. If you don’t like the size of your utility bills now – just wait. Global welfare? You bet — social programs including a “social protection floor” and “safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable were proposed. They also want price increases, flat out price hikes, on the use and consumption of anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use. Consider that for a moment.

Do you like the idea of paying $500, $1000 or $1,500 for a fishing or hunting license just so most of the money can be shipped to the UN? That is, if they allow you to fish or hunt. How about a federal fee for camping in the woods? You’re using forestry resources, aren’t you? How about an individual swimming permit, say $25 per person – per season, so you can take a plunge in the local lake or hang at the beach? Silly examples? Think again. How else could you get America to fund the world? If you attack American’s paychecks directly, you would create riots and rebellion. No, the better way is to be subtle. Over time classify virtually all of life as a “privilege” and charge a fee for pursuing the privilege. After all, you don’t have to take a swim.

The organized move to convert America to Socialism is happening. The UN isn’t the only attacker. Politicians like Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, John Kerry and other liberal-socialists, looking for a seat at the international table, are working from the inside to help this occur. These people are legislating away the sovereignty of the United States. Crazy? Why does Obama consistently stomp on the Constitution? Why, when Europe’s economy is failing for all to see, is Obama and the Left forcing European-socialism upon America? Why is Obama supporting the Rio initiatives previously mentioned? Why did Hillary Clinton, on May 23rd, testify in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty? As you read this, the Small Arms Treaty is being negotiated in talks scheduled between July 2 and July 27th. Obama, not even knowing how negotiations will end, has already said he’s going to sign it. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what the final agreement is. Any step toward banning guns is a positive step, no matter how small. It’s like sculpting — chip, chip, chip, chip. Enough chips and you transform a stone into a statue of Karl Marx.

Ask yourself, are Obama, Clinton and the others really amateurs? Are they really buffoons that are in over their head? Or is it more likely that a small number of hard-left fanatics, having gained power, are using ‘save the world’ tax initiatives, treaties, laws and Executive Orders to achieve their agenda?

You and I, my fellow citizen crusaders, and our children and grandchildren are dangerously close to being committed to funding the world. The UN billionaire’s tax and the myriad other initiatives put forth by the UN and lefty politicians here in the states, are designed to strip us of our money — it’s share the wealth on a global scale. They have already successfully grabbed huge junks of your home equity and retirement plans. Why hasn’t a single person gone to jail? Not one. And now the Small Arms Treaty is designed to take your guns. Obviously, when you’re broke and unarmed fighting a government you’re against is a difficult proposition.

Admittedly, America under attack from within is a tough concept for most people to wrap their head around. The Left uses this to their advantage. They label anyone that puts the pieces of the puzzle together a conspiracy nut. But consider rather than bombs, they are using treaties. In place of grenades, they’re using legislation. Rather than firing bullets, they fire off Executive Orders. The battle to overthrow American capitalism and replace it with American-euro socialism may be hidden from most people’s lives but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

This election year isn’t just about the economy. It’s about America. Will the country be your vision or theirs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Obama: For Tax And Spend…Before He Was Against It

Obama the penny pincher?

Obama has been exposed in yet another blatant campaign lie.  This one wasn’t even really his fault.  Rex Nutting, a writer for the mainstream/yet left leaning Marketwatch prepared a chart that shows Obama hasn’t really grown spending all that much.  The administration quickly ran with it, putting the chart on their facebook page, and announcing that Obama was a model of fiscal restraint.

So how does this economist at Marketwatch, and now Obama and media reporters who can barely add two and two, come to figure out that Obama is so thrifty?  Simple.  Their percentages make one major assumption that makes the percentages meaningless.  Every dollar of spending in the first year of a President’s term is directly a result of the budget the previous President wrote.

To put it simply, the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill that Obama ran on, lobbied for, pushed through the Democrat super majorities in the House and Senate, and signed was actually spending that should be attributed to Bush.  Of course once you do that you have majorly inflated Bush’s spending and deflated Obama’s spending so that percentages make Obama look like a champ.  I’m not making this up.  This is actually what Rex Nutter did.  He also included 2013 in Obama’s figures even though Obama’s budget lost in the Senate something like 99-0.

The footnote is misleading. Nutter means only $140 billion of the Stimulus (the portion passed in October) is attributed to Obama.

Nutter should be fired, but who is going to fire him?  Journalists rely on people like Nutter to be the “experts”.  That way they don’t have to actually do any work.

“I was for tax and spend, before I was against it!”

Obama’s budget cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.  Of course, like Clinton’s last budget in office, it is simply words on a page that have absolutely no bearing on reality.  But nevermind the fact that $4 trillion over the next ten years wouldn’t cover Obama’s deficits for his first four years or that his numbers are probably about as accurate as the CBOs estimate of the costs of Obamacare.  Since when did Obama decide he was against tax and spend??

Obama, on the one year anniversary of what Nutter seems to think was Bush’s stimulus, praised the stimulus package as having saved us from another great depression.  So shouldn’t we be thanking Bush?  While Obama has been running as a tax cutting President who pinches pennies on his facebook page, just a couple weeks ago he re-affirmed his tax and spend stance in the upcoming debt ceiling debate.  Obama went from tax and spend, to proud tax cutting President when he was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts, to tax and spend when the debt ceiling debate rolled around again, and back to tax cutting for the 2012 election.  Even John Kerry was more consistent.

Biting the hand that feeds them

It is not coming up all roses for the Obama propaganda machine.  Obama is betting the farm on a populist attack against Bain Capital where Romney used to work.  But the Left has been heavily funded by private equity, and most private equity companies didn’t get the memo about Obama just saying whatever it takes to get elected.  Some of them are actually getting offended by the attacks.

Democrats are getting nervous too.  Apparently not every Democrat feels comfortable biting the hand that feeds them.  But what else does Obama have to attack Romney on other than the fact that he is successful and the “independent” liberal voting base is anti-success?

The attack on Bain is dubious anyway.  As a venture capital company, they may have had lots of layoffs on their watch in order to fix businesses, but Obama has seen 2.5 million net jobs lost on his watch.  Actually, let me borrow some Obama math and accuracy and adjust that number to 6.7 million jobs lost.  After all, if the net loss is 2.5 million, but Obama claims he added 4.2 million, then shouldn’t we be using the total jobs lost figure instead of the net?  Just trying to be consistent, Mr. President.

Obama is running as a conservative while acting like a liberal.  When conservatives force his hand, he is happy to take credit for the results.  When liberalism fails, he is happy to pass the buck to Congress or the previous administration.  He will say or do whatever it takes to win re-election and cannot be trusted.

Debate Caliber

With Newt inches from running in the 2012 primary, the one comment I have heard most from Republican friends is much fun it would be to watch a Newt/Obama debate. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent on McCain, I think most of us would admit that he was a great campaigner, but not the best debater.

George W. Bush was a good debater. So good in fact that I remember the conspiracy nuts saying that Bush had a hidden earpiece and a box shaped transmitter between his shoulderblades for one of his debates with John Kerry. I was always impressed that the guy who single-handedly planned and carried out 9/11 so that he could start a war for oil, couldn’t afford a small CIA wire instead of a large box-shaped transmitter. Come on now people.

Gingrich is an incredible debater. For example, in his debate with Mario Cuomo, he got Cuomo to admit that if Democrats ran on their actual agenda, they wouldn’t win elections.

Gingrich went to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention and debated Sharpton, who is also the founder of National Action Network. They debated among other things, race and education. He debated John Kerry on energy policy. Gingrich has not backed down, and has carried himself as an absolute gentleman in the debates.

Many have written Gingrich off before he leaves the gate. Liberals, who somehow manage to see through the plank in their own eye, have quickly attacked Gingrich’s 16 year old marriage infidelity. Some on the right fear that Gingrich will lack the energy and charisma to take on the Obama youth machine and will end up becoming the Fred Thompson of 2012.

But there is no denying that a Gingrich/Obama debate would be epic. Gingrich has more than quick thinking and intelligence on his side. He also has a vast knowledge of history, both recent and distant.

When McCain went on the View, Whoopi Goldberg asked him if returning our country to the US Constitution would mean that she should have to worry about slavery coming back. McCain couldn’t answer the question. Gingrich would have no problem quickly pointing out the folly of the question itself because Gingrich knows what the constitution says and why it says it.

Too many Republicans are facing 2012 with a fatalist attitude. Unfortunately, many have already written off the upcoming election. I challenge you to think this way: imagine a debate between Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. If that doesn’t get you re-invigorated about 2012, I don’t know what will.

Is Trump Trustworthy?

We’ve heard it before. In fact, our current President stood before the nation and told us that he believed that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. Since then, Obama has stirred controversy by refusing to defend the current law on the books that defines marriage that way. In fact, before the ink was dry on the administration’s statement that they would no longer defend DOMA in court, prop 8 opponents in California had quotes from the statement prepared in a lengthy legal document requesting a stay in the implementation of Prop 8.

Pandering is the ancient art of politics. John Kerry supported the war before he was against it. Many have accused Mitt Romney of pandering. After all, he ran on a pro-choice platform in Massachusetts and then wrote Romneycare. He may have excuses and explanations, but in the end conservatives will have to decide if they are willing to trust Romney on social issues and healthcare.

Conservatives will have to make the same decision with Donald Trump. Trump recently came out in opposition both of gay marriage and civil union benefits. Already he is getting a lot of flack for the choice. One gay activist called him “an extreme bigot” for his marriage position.

Trump has also changed his stance on abortion, now choosing to go pro-life.

So can social conservatives trust Donald Trump? As noted in previous posts, Trump has supported Democrats like Rahm Emanuel financially. Trump’s daughter was recently seen at a pro-gay marriage reception in New York.

Trump knows whose palms to grease and who to support to be successful in his business. That makes an easy explanation for his history. But it should also be a warning sign to social conservatives. Is Trump truly a social right winger? Or is the social right wing his latest acquisition?

Trump’s move may be genuine, but the 2012 Republican electorate is turning out to be one of the most cynical, untrusting and judgmental crowd the right has seen in a long time. And justly so. George W. Bush’s last couple years in office ruined his conservative legacy, and McCain was no Reagan.

My prediction: Trump is not going to convince the social conservative base of the Republican party.

%d bloggers like this: