Do you believe you know Barack Obama well enough to vote for him because you have heard his speeches?
Are you apolitical? Do you not care about politics? Do you wish to stay neutral? Are you planning to vote Independent? If so, what do you think will happen to that vote? What do you think will happen if you don’t vote, or cast your vote for him thinking it’s just one of millions?
Barack Obama’s connections and ideology are not in line with the traditions and standards that have made this great nation successful and a sought-after destination, for immigrants as well as visitors and investors. His economic plans are fiscally unsound, he wants to meet with a dangerous Holocaust denier (and lies about Henry Kissinger giving him the thumbs up on this), and the ways he campaigns are reminiscent of Hitler Youth and Cultural Revolution-era thugs.
If you don’t know Barack Obama, get to know him. Neither party is going to have all the right answers, but Barack Obama’s is the only one that seeks to impose his “solutions” on others, whether they are willing or not.
A flattering earthy shade of brown, perhaps?
“For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”–John F. Kennedy
Jennifer Joyce, a high-profile prosecuting attorney, is one of two who will be “reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than 250K$ a year.”
The video above repeats what I have previously said: this is impossible given the fact that not everyone even pays income taxes.
Aside from that, I want to know why people in Missouri or any state should tolerate prosecuters proseletysing for the Barack Obama campaign or go after ads that are “misleading”–subjective to begin with–or false, especially when Obama himself not only has lied but been caught at it.
Joyce says, “[W]e’re here to respond to any character attacks, to set the record straight,” and prosecutor Bob McColloch declares: “If they’re not going to tell the truth, then somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not true, this is the truth.'” So what happens when Obama’s own campaign lies? Is this the kind of oppressive rule he intends to force of the American people?
The people of the United States have the right to hear from both parties and make determinations on their own. Not only is Obama’s technique another step towards a nanny state–deciding what is good for us–but also is a reprehensible and flagrant violation of our right to information, free speech and freedom to assemble.
Is this the beginning of the “national security force” he proposes to establish?
More and more every day, each time Barack Obama opens his mouth I am reminded of two scary words: Cultural Revolution. Mao had people getting in the faces and business of those he didn’t like and going after people who made critical discussions on the actions of the state. He had bands of people running around engaging in “keeping order” as well. Now Obama is advocating that his minions get in people’s faces and form a group called the “truth squad” to silence his opponents by shouting them down and attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
So how long until he asks for criticisms and recommendations and then gulags those who respond? When comes the day in which some of us will be required to publicly account for our sins and beg for the holy status of rehabilitated?
I’d like to believe all of this is as absurd as it sounds. Fear mongering is never an effective strategy, nor is a hyperventilating kind of activism. However, questions as addressed above, extreme as they appear on the surface, should give pause to those who like or dislike Obama and consider the effects of such behavior on the part of the Illinois senator, even if no one actually is jailed or prosecuted for their dissenting views.
As Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:
[N]o one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearingof David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?
It’s stated well and I agree, but there also should be the caution to those who will silence or be silenced on the basis of fear.
We have seen time and again how Barack Obama ridicules John McCain’s policies and tries to duck when people ask him questions. In fact, he never really answers, but instead maneuvers the conversation over to what he thinks his opponent is doing wrong.
In the 2008 presidential debate aired Friday, Senator Obama checked off a series of proposals to protect taxpayers, including his assertion that “we’ve got to make sure we’re helping homeowners because the root problem here has to do with foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.” He went on to blame the current crisis on “eight years of economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says we can shred regulations and consumer protections.”
Now I have a couple of questions about this. Exactly which homeowners is Senator Obama trying to help? The ones who can’t afford houses they should have never been approved to buy in the first place? Or are we talking here about the homeowners whose tax dollars may go to covering the cost of illegal immigrant and other homeowners whose subprime loans went into foreclosure?
And which regulations and consumer protections is he talking about when he accuses Bush and McCain of shredding them? Perhaps those of the Community Re-investment Act, which triggered lawsuits against banks that didn’t loan to people with bad credit or too-low income? And did the “consumer protections” he referenced include the charges of racism levelled at those who did not meet the CRA standards and quotas for loans to guarantee “affordable housing”?
It’s not that difficult to see a lack of substance in the speeches and panderings of Barack Obama, and in this reply he did not answer the question at all. His points (which were stretched to create more of them, by the way) were mere echoes of what the public has been critisising and not at all close to what he has been calling for in the past. His call for “oversight,” for example, is nothing more than posturing. Where was he when McCain was speaking out against these practises? The Democrats struck down McCain’s proposal in favor of “affordable housing,” but all Obama can do is repeat ad nauseum “Wall Street and Main Street” while he attacks the alleged “shredding” by Senator McCain.
The following video goes into great detail about how this current crisis came to pass. Please note it moves a bit fast and you should hover over the pause button to click when you want to read something before it moves to the next frame.
Reverse Spin has a lot more about how the MSM has essentially become Barack Obama’s press agent.