NOTHING LESS AT STAKE THAN OUR CONSTITUTION; FOR PRESIDENT: JOHN McCAIN
John McCain is an honorable man, and he will do this country no harm. For that reason, he has my support for President. I cannot say the same thing about Barack Obama.
This year, if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee, I may have been tempted to vote for her. John McCain was not my first choice for president, or my second, for that matter. The McCain/Feingold Bill on campaign finance reform was one of the most un-American pieces of legislation I have seen come out of Congress in many years. It is ironic that McCain, himself, is now suffering the consequences of his own folly. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. By promising John McCain that he would accept public campaign financing, then reneging, Barack Obama snookered John McCain at his own game.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is also snookering the American public. A fawning press decided a year ago this is who it wanted to be President. The biasness in the press turned from “wink-wink- nod-nod” into something much more onerous and dangerous as the major networks and newspapers jumped into the tank with Obama and completely failed to do their job. The consequence of this deliberate assault on our political process is the raising the eyebrows of some in the press itself. Michael Malone, a 30 year veteran of newspapers and television, including the New York Times, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, PBS, the San Jose Mercury, and currently employed by ABCNews.com, wrote: “If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.”
In a scathing, 5 page article published on October 24, Malone goes on to say that this year represents the death of the media as we knew it, and represents the dying gasp of traditional journalism as editors, surrounded by bloggers and the internet and talk radio and other modern forms of communication, try to gain favor with the anointed winner in a desperate effort to save their 401(K’s) as traditional media empires collapse around them. (The New York Times' bonds have been downgraded to junk as its circulation plunges, its ad revenues tank, and it is mired in debt.) What does the mainstream media hope to achieve? Malone writes: “With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to…the traditional media for getting it there.”
Obama has been successful because you don’t know too much about him. If you did, you would hide under your bed. He is dangerous. He is radical. And he has accomplished it all with a nice smile, a suave manner, and great speeches. He is beyond liberal. He is out to “change” the country by destroying the very foundation upon which it was built: the Constitution. He not only wants to “redistribute wealth”, he wants to redistribute the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States is based on individual freedoms and property rights. The founding fathers put in constraints against a confiscatory central government protecting both our liberty and our property. Obama has openly criticized and expressed disdain for those restraints in his view of America. Read Obama’s own words.
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.”
“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
“And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
And if that is not enough for you, here is some more:
“(The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments)… I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
And another gem:
"...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home."
Finally, Obama wrote in his book Dreams From My Father:
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more political active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Even after graduating from Columbia, he further wrote of "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
His association with William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn (on the FBI’s Most Wanted List); his 20 plus year association with Jeremiah Wright, an outright black racist; his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian activist who worked with Yasser Arafat show that Obama’s view of America as a flawed country hasn’t changed. More importantly, he lied to the American people about these associations saying they were “casual”. They weren’t casual. They were ongoing, and the mainstream media chose to ignore them because they didn’t fit their predetermined media template for his candidacy.
Here’s the deal. Since Franklin Roosevelt, America has established safety nets for various groups in our society. I am not arguing that a progressive income tax is wrong when the money is used to achieve government’s legitimate goals, including the safety nets built into our system. BUT, what Obama is proposing if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof majority in Congress is a redefinition of the role of government. Instead of using taxes to provide a safety net for people, taxes will be used for a mass redistribution of wealth to whomever the government deems worthy of receiving it. The government will choose the winners and losers instead of hard work and individual responsibility for one’s own welfare. Will you be on the receiving end or the confiscatory end of this government enterprise?
To take money from a working taxpayer’s pocket and literally send a check to a non-taxpaying worker because it is “fair”, is just plain wrong.
In addition, he has hinted at a dual standard of justice to be implemented by activist courts. One for those who he deems “fortunate”, and another to take into consideration the suffering of the “oppressed” in our society as determined, of course, by Obama. Which standard of justice will you be subjected to?
To achieve this, Obama, with the counsel of his leftist friends, will try to stack the Supreme Court in an attempt to rip apart the safeguards built into the Constitution to protect our liberties and our property. He will attempt to silence the opposition. He will regulate guns. He will make citizens out of illegal immigrants to assist in stacking the ballot. He will take over control of the schools under the guise of fairness. He will take away the secret ballot in unionization efforts leaving workers open to intimidation and threats if they don’t sign up. All of this is standard socialist operating procedure. You see, he says he is for the middle class. He is not. He disdains the proletariat (middle class) in favor of what he claims to be the under classes in our society.
This radical, new view of the Constitution is scary and dangerous. There is no change or hope here. This is traditional, extreme left wing ideology. It is socialism. Obama has even used the usual socialist tactics throughout his campaign: his self deification, mass rallies with hundreds of thousands of people, the use of children singing his praises in professionally produced videos; intimidation of the press if asked any probative questions at all; the use of public institutions to destroy a citizen who simply asked him a question when Obama approached his yard in a door to door photo op; fund raising tactics which have hid the sources of hundreds of millions of dollars that have flowed into his campaign through the use of pre-paid credit cards; and the direction of public money and his campaign funds to ACORN and its voter fraud efforts. Nothing new here!!
Over the past year, I have compared Obama to Jimmy Carter. I was wrong. A better comparison would be Richard Nixon. He, too, believed that the end justified the means as he compromised the Constitution in an attempt to implement his vision of America. Obama has the same flaw. No one can question or criticize him or his view of the direction the country should go. He has no scruples in achieving his desired end, and is not afraid to use the power of the government to go after those who oppose him. Justification and vindication will be found in legalisms.
If Obama can do what he says he wants to do to the “wealthy” in this country, he can do it to you. His view of wealthy is $42,000.00/year. Obama surrogate Governor Bill Richardson said only yesterday those making under $120,000.00 (not $250,000.00/year) will be blessed with a tax cut. Folks, that is pyramided income. So you NEA teachers who are married to each other...watch out. Your taxes will go up, not down.
This year, if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee, I may have been tempted to vote for her. John McCain was not my first choice for president, or my second, for that matter. The McCain/Feingold Bill on campaign finance reform was one of the most un-American pieces of legislation I have seen come out of Congress in many years. It is ironic that McCain, himself, is now suffering the consequences of his own folly. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. By promising John McCain that he would accept public campaign financing, then reneging, Barack Obama snookered John McCain at his own game.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is also snookering the American public. A fawning press decided a year ago this is who it wanted to be President. The biasness in the press turned from “wink-wink- nod-nod” into something much more onerous and dangerous as the major networks and newspapers jumped into the tank with Obama and completely failed to do their job. The consequence of this deliberate assault on our political process is the raising the eyebrows of some in the press itself. Michael Malone, a 30 year veteran of newspapers and television, including the New York Times, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, PBS, the San Jose Mercury, and currently employed by ABCNews.com, wrote: “If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.”
In a scathing, 5 page article published on October 24, Malone goes on to say that this year represents the death of the media as we knew it, and represents the dying gasp of traditional journalism as editors, surrounded by bloggers and the internet and talk radio and other modern forms of communication, try to gain favor with the anointed winner in a desperate effort to save their 401(K’s) as traditional media empires collapse around them. (The New York Times' bonds have been downgraded to junk as its circulation plunges, its ad revenues tank, and it is mired in debt.) What does the mainstream media hope to achieve? Malone writes: “With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to…the traditional media for getting it there.”
Obama has been successful because you don’t know too much about him. If you did, you would hide under your bed. He is dangerous. He is radical. And he has accomplished it all with a nice smile, a suave manner, and great speeches. He is beyond liberal. He is out to “change” the country by destroying the very foundation upon which it was built: the Constitution. He not only wants to “redistribute wealth”, he wants to redistribute the Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States is based on individual freedoms and property rights. The founding fathers put in constraints against a confiscatory central government protecting both our liberty and our property. Obama has openly criticized and expressed disdain for those restraints in his view of America. Read Obama’s own words.
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.”
“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
“And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
And if that is not enough for you, here is some more:
“(The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments)… I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
And another gem:
"...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home."
Finally, Obama wrote in his book Dreams From My Father:
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more political active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Even after graduating from Columbia, he further wrote of "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
His association with William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn (on the FBI’s Most Wanted List); his 20 plus year association with Jeremiah Wright, an outright black racist; his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian activist who worked with Yasser Arafat show that Obama’s view of America as a flawed country hasn’t changed. More importantly, he lied to the American people about these associations saying they were “casual”. They weren’t casual. They were ongoing, and the mainstream media chose to ignore them because they didn’t fit their predetermined media template for his candidacy.
Here’s the deal. Since Franklin Roosevelt, America has established safety nets for various groups in our society. I am not arguing that a progressive income tax is wrong when the money is used to achieve government’s legitimate goals, including the safety nets built into our system. BUT, what Obama is proposing if the Democrats achieve a filibuster proof majority in Congress is a redefinition of the role of government. Instead of using taxes to provide a safety net for people, taxes will be used for a mass redistribution of wealth to whomever the government deems worthy of receiving it. The government will choose the winners and losers instead of hard work and individual responsibility for one’s own welfare. Will you be on the receiving end or the confiscatory end of this government enterprise?
To take money from a working taxpayer’s pocket and literally send a check to a non-taxpaying worker because it is “fair”, is just plain wrong.
In addition, he has hinted at a dual standard of justice to be implemented by activist courts. One for those who he deems “fortunate”, and another to take into consideration the suffering of the “oppressed” in our society as determined, of course, by Obama. Which standard of justice will you be subjected to?
To achieve this, Obama, with the counsel of his leftist friends, will try to stack the Supreme Court in an attempt to rip apart the safeguards built into the Constitution to protect our liberties and our property. He will attempt to silence the opposition. He will regulate guns. He will make citizens out of illegal immigrants to assist in stacking the ballot. He will take over control of the schools under the guise of fairness. He will take away the secret ballot in unionization efforts leaving workers open to intimidation and threats if they don’t sign up. All of this is standard socialist operating procedure. You see, he says he is for the middle class. He is not. He disdains the proletariat (middle class) in favor of what he claims to be the under classes in our society.
This radical, new view of the Constitution is scary and dangerous. There is no change or hope here. This is traditional, extreme left wing ideology. It is socialism. Obama has even used the usual socialist tactics throughout his campaign: his self deification, mass rallies with hundreds of thousands of people, the use of children singing his praises in professionally produced videos; intimidation of the press if asked any probative questions at all; the use of public institutions to destroy a citizen who simply asked him a question when Obama approached his yard in a door to door photo op; fund raising tactics which have hid the sources of hundreds of millions of dollars that have flowed into his campaign through the use of pre-paid credit cards; and the direction of public money and his campaign funds to ACORN and its voter fraud efforts. Nothing new here!!
Over the past year, I have compared Obama to Jimmy Carter. I was wrong. A better comparison would be Richard Nixon. He, too, believed that the end justified the means as he compromised the Constitution in an attempt to implement his vision of America. Obama has the same flaw. No one can question or criticize him or his view of the direction the country should go. He has no scruples in achieving his desired end, and is not afraid to use the power of the government to go after those who oppose him. Justification and vindication will be found in legalisms.
If Obama can do what he says he wants to do to the “wealthy” in this country, he can do it to you. His view of wealthy is $42,000.00/year. Obama surrogate Governor Bill Richardson said only yesterday those making under $120,000.00 (not $250,000.00/year) will be blessed with a tax cut. Folks, that is pyramided income. So you NEA teachers who are married to each other...watch out. Your taxes will go up, not down.
Don’t look at what he promises, look at his idealogical declarations. Look at what he has done. Look what he has voted for. Look at what he is hiding when he voted "present" instead of taking a stand. Therein lies the truth.
Don’t sell yourself or the country short. These past few weeks, the financial markets have been scary, but it will pass like every other financial crisis this country has faced over our long history.
There is no free lunch, no matter what Obama promises. Don’t sell the country or your freedom short on a dream of wealth redistribution. Our Constitution and core beliefs as a nation are worth much more than the few pieces of silver Obama wants to take from this guy’s pocket and put in another guy’s pocket. Behind that plan, is a vision of America you may not like.
As I said, John McCain is an honorable man and will do this country no harm. In this election, I will be happy for that.
Don’t sell yourself or the country short. These past few weeks, the financial markets have been scary, but it will pass like every other financial crisis this country has faced over our long history.
There is no free lunch, no matter what Obama promises. Don’t sell the country or your freedom short on a dream of wealth redistribution. Our Constitution and core beliefs as a nation are worth much more than the few pieces of silver Obama wants to take from this guy’s pocket and put in another guy’s pocket. Behind that plan, is a vision of America you may not like.
As I said, John McCain is an honorable man and will do this country no harm. In this election, I will be happy for that.
Comments