Who Decides? You or the Government?

    Who do you think should have the last word in deciding what your children are taught about sex?  Who should decide what sort of moral values your children are taught?  Would you like your children taught that there is no "Right to Life," only a woman's "Right to Choose?"  Are you willing to have your children taught in a government school that there is no moral difference between a one-man, one-woman marriage and a homosexual relationship between two women or two men?  Is it OK with you if the government convinces them that there are no Absolute Values, but only Personal Choices?

    If so, you're a fortunate person.  Great Britain, within their program of socialized medicine, is encouraging citizens to talk about the big issues of life with their children.  But, unfortunately, not in a manner calculated to instill the values held by the parent.  No, the parent should merely encourage the child to make his or her own decision, with no reference to parental authority or any other absolute.  No rules except, perhaps, whatever capricious rules the government might choose to put in place.

    My good friend Graham Weeks, who is a pharmacist in that country, shares some information that the government would have their medical community distribute to citizens for their enlightenment.  Read it and let me know what you think.  If you're a citizen of the United States you really ought to give this some consideration, because the new president of the United States is promising to bring socialized medicine to this country.

Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan ... or Not?

    There was a time when Democrats in Washington said it was good policy to give mortgage loans of 100% or more to folks who might not even have a job with which to earn enough to pay them back.  As long as you had some sort of income -- even if it was welfare -- the policy was to push lenders to make the loans.  "We'll guarantee the loan through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac," Barney Frank (D-Mass) told them.

    The result was a spate of baseless mortgages, homes where the "homeowners" had no personal stake in the home they live in.  Many had bought in the expectation that house prices would forever continue to rise, and that they could make a ton of money by selling the house for much more than what they paid.  That expectation was dashed when supply began to exceed demand, when people started to default on their payments, and the economy turned south with many businesses having to lay off employees.  Now all those mortgages which aren't being paid back are called "toxic assets."  They have no value in today's economy.

    So who will pay for these bad decisions made by Barney Frank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and greedy people who wanted something for nothing?  Not Barney Frank; for some reason the voters of Massachusetts keep returning him to the House of Representatives.  Not the buyers who made a bad decision to buy a house they couldn't reasonably afford.  Not the banks that made the loans knowing their clients had no way of repaying them.  No, it is you and I, the American taxpayer, who will be held accountable.  Barack H. Obama introduced, on February 21, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan  which will use $275 billions of taxpayer money to assist up to nine million homeowners who may be at risk of defaulting on their mortgages.  Is this a good idea?

    Dr. Ronald Utt and David John say no, it is not.  In a February 25 article to the Heritage Foundation, Utt and John point to 12 problems with Obama's plan.  Consider this quote from problem # 12:  "Perhaps the most troubling part of the plan is the increased reliance being placed on the now federally-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lax and corrupt behavior over the past decade was an important contributing factor to the present economic crisis."

The Typical Democrat Voter

    Why is it that the typical Democrat voter is so unwilling to debate political issues?  I have to admit that most of my friends are of a conservative bent, but I do know some who admit to having a hatred of Republicans in general, and the previous occupant of the White House in particular.  That hatred, coupled with their unquestioning adoration of our current president, a man whose accomplishments and associations, motives and methods are never held up to scrutiny, lead to a skewed view of reality.

    On one hand, they want to snipe at the previous administration and Republicans in general, assessing blame to them for the current state of affairs in the economy and the world at large.  On the other hand, they are unwilling to listen to any voice that speaks a reasonable word of truth into their alternate universe.  They faithfully listen to and parrot the biased talking points of the mainstream media while refusing to consider or even listen to any other view.  They call those who hold and put forth opposing views "mind-numbed robots" at the same time they maintain their own willful ignorance.

    On the one hand they talk about the need for everyone to have a vote and support groups that try to enlist all sorts of people onto democrat voters roles -- like ACORN, a group that is (or was) under investigation for fraud in a number of states.  On the other hand, they push for a misnamed bill -- the Employee Free-Choice Act -- in congress that would deny a secret ballot to workers who are considering whether to organize into a union.

    On the one hand they talk about the inordinate influence that conservative icons such as Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity have on Republicans and conservative voters.  On the other hand they deny any influence from an extremely liberal mainstream media.

    On the one hand they say that we can't achieve energy independence by drilling for oil in our own country.  On the other hand, they insist that we can achieve a sound economy by borrowing a Trillion Dollars and spending it on (as Townhall.com reports) nearly 9,000 Porky Projects.

    Why is this so?  Chelsea Schilling posts a review of a new book by Dr. Lyle Rossiter for World Net Daily today.  In his book, titled The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, Dr. Rossiter probes modern liberalism's irrationality.  I have yet to read the book, but I have put it on my reading list.  I hope he can tell me how to generate some meaningful discussion with these typical Democrat voters...

    By the way, Ben Franklin once said, "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

 

"What Were They Thinking?"

Where's it Gonna Go?

    I just joined Stimulus Watch, a web site where you can take look at the so-called "shovel-ready" projects that mayors from around the country have submitted to be recipients of the government's largesse (that is, our tax bucks).  You can vote on the projects, share your opinions, and even (if you know something about the project) edit the wording of the project.

    Go on over there and see what's coming for your area.  Then make a note, so you can go back in five or ten years and complain when nothing is being done yet.

    "What Were You Thinking?"

The Constitution and the District of Columbia

The First article of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, in the second section and in part, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ... No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

The Sixth Article of the same document reads, in the third paragraph and in part, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

The Heritage Foundation published the following commentary yesterday in The Morning Bell...

"For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no. In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this truth, writing: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives." The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.

Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8's grant to Congress to exercise "exclusive Legislation" over the District, gives them the power to grant the District a seat in the House. Heritage fellow Hans von Spakovsky exposes how specious this claim is: 

The Constitution’s provision giving Congress the power to run the affairs of the District of Columbia — the seat of the nation’s capitol — doesn’t wipe out other parts of the document. Congress could not, for example, restrict the First Amendment rights of District residents.

Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also applies to “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards” and other federal properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the basis of that text, that Congress has the power to award House seats to an army base, federal office building, or Navy pier.

Conservatives are not alone in pointing out what a blatant violation of the Constitution S. 160 would be. Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes: 

It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District. It would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for new voting members.

Some Senators appear to believe they can in good conscience vote for explicitly unconstitutional legislation if they include a provision in the bill that allows a Member of Congress to challenge the law in court. But such a provision would only clear statutory standing. Any plaintiff would also have to muster constitutional standing and as Heritage scholars Andrew Grossman and Nathaniel Ward detail, Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening.

Members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution. This makes them duty bound to oppose any legislation that is unconstitutional. It would be a black eye on the entire Congress if they chose political expediency over their solemn promise to the American people."

More Chicago Politics...

    It just goes on and on and on and...

    These guys from Chicago have invaded and taken over Washington.  Now even the Washington Post is saying that Roland Burris (D-IL), the man chosen by impeached and convicted former Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) should step down from the Senate, and that a special election to fill that office should be conducted by the state of Illinois.

    Do you suppose an election will provide a more honest and moral senator for the state? Given Illinois' track record, I wouldn't hold any great expectations.

White House: "Santelli's wrong"

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs wants to buy Rick Santelli a decaf coffee and show him where he's got the president's "stimulus package" wrong.  Typically, the democrats aren't interested in answering the substance of the issue, namely why the government can extort money from those who earn it only to pass it out (after deducting half to pay for a bloated bureaucracy) to those citizens and illegals who are unwilling to work for a living.  Asked by Hardball host Chris Matthews if he was coming down too hard on Barack, Santelli said, "No, I'm not, I'm not coming down hard on Barack.  I'm coming down hard on the notion that I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where if you work hard, you're looked at as being dispassionate, inhumane, because you won't let your government redistribute what you've worked hard for."

    Gibbs also said that he'd be happy to have Santelli sit in his (Gibbs') office and read the plan.  Of course, the administration told everyone before the plan was passed by Congress and signed by the president, that it was too important, too badly needed, for open discussion and debate prior to the vote.

 

"The Chicago Tea Party"

Did you hear Rick Santelli tee off against the President's home mortgage bill yesterday?  If not, surely you heard about it; he's talking about a "Chicago Tea Party."  After you watch the video on CNBC's web page, check out the interview in National Review in which he talks about feedback he's received.

Will it Work?

I mentioned in an earlier post my Daddy's thoughts on what to do when you find yourself in a hole: "Quit Digging!"  A couple days ago I recieved a link to this very interesting article on the Money and Markets website.  Titled The Obama Stimulus: Truth and Consequences, it's a long read but author Martin D. Weiss sets out quite plainly and vividly what our government has been doing and how successful they've been so far, and then projects what we may very well have in store over the next few years.

The Heritage foundation's blog, The Foundry, also evaluates the to-date performance of the several attempts to shore up the economy on the backs of our kids. Read The Seven Floats of the Bush-Obama Borrow-Bailout Parade and see if it reflects your thoughts.

It will be interesting to revisit Dr. Weiss's article in the coming years, to see how much of what he predicts has come to pass.  Now would be a good time to pray...

Who's Gonna Pay The Bill?

Obama likes to call it the Economic Recovery Act, but any way you slice it, it's a huge borrowing package, the likes of which this country has never seen and may never dig out from under.  It includes a fantastic amount of Jimmy Dean stuff -- you know, pork -- that won't stimulate anything except the pockets of some politicians who are looking to buy votes in their next election campaign.

If there's any bright side, it seems that while most Obama voters ignore the issue of payback, some of their younger siblings are asking why they are going to be stuck with the bill.  Matt Drudge quotes a Tim Hacker report in the East Valley Tribune.  Democrats would like to ignore the payback part of the bill, but it's not going away and will only grow as time passes and people see the results (more likely, lack of results) of this porky product from Pig City.

I happened to catch Dennis Miller on the Jay Leno show last night, and he was talking about Obama and the stimulus porkage and what it would mean to him personally.  He said that it has now come to pass that productive people in this country, about half of the population, are supporting the other half.  He related a story of how, when he was a kid, his family had supported an orphan in Honduras, and in return got a picture and occasional letters from her, thanking them.  He said that's all he wants, a picture of whoever it is he's supporting and an occasional letter of thanks.

I also tend to agree with Miller when he says that we (as a country) need to help the helpless, but as for the clueless, he couldn't care less.  "Get a job, Slacker!"

"..A Tax Cut for 95% of taxpayers.."

 Obama promised a tax cut for all but the wealthiest, and a lot of the New Losers bought the line, crossed the line, and helped elect him based on hatred of anyone who made more money than they.  Now it seems that these "tax cuts for 95%" will not be actual tax cuts, but rather a redistribution of wealth from those of us who work and pay taxes, to those who'd rather sit on their butts and are a net drain on the economy.

But Obama still calls it a tax cut -- I guess when you're president you can just go ahead and redefine the meaning of the term to whatever you want it to be.

"..and the Beat Goes On..."

When do you think it will stop?  Obama demonstrably has a preference for income tax evaders in his administration.  Now we find that his chief of staff, former Democrat congressman from Illinois Rahm Emanuel, has been living, rent-free, in a house belonging to Rosa Delauro (D-Conn) and did not pay the taxes required for such a gift.  Not only that, The Washington Post says that as chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, he threw contracts to DeLauro's husband, pollster Stan Greenberg: $239,000 in 2006 and $317,000 in 2008.

Phyllis Schlafly had an interesting column (Feb. 11) about the 'transparency' Obama promised for his administration.  I wonder if the Democrats who voted for this guy are having second thoughts about the promised "Change you can Believe in?"  Probably not; they've already proved how easy it is for them to just ignore the facts.

The Abortion Debate

"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?"

A friend sent me a link to an article on World Net Daily of a speech made by a 12-year-old Canadian girl at her school.  The words above open the speech, which was made as a preliminary to an upcoming speech competition.  The girl was urged to seek another, less "controversial" topic, threatened with exclusion from the competition, and one of the judges was "offended" and left the panel.  

You should watch the video of the speech and make up your own mind.  I would suggest that this young lady makes more sense than did the Supreme Court back in 1973 when they concocted a "right to choose" that opened the door to this awful procedure.  It is interesting to note the way those who support abortion almost always try to suppress any opposing view of the issue rather than make a case for their own position.

Obama's Senate Replacement

What is it about Democrat politicians from Chicago?  What is it, one has to ask, about the people of Illinois who continue to elect Chicago politicians?  Whatever it is, apparently it's a viral infection because we now have one of those in the highest elective office in the country.

And now Roland Burris, the man chosen by impeached-and-convicted governot Rod Blagojevich to replace Barack H. Obama in the U.S. Senate, has had to admit that he had not disclosed the full story under questioning by the Illinois Senate panel assigned to investigate the appointment.

If you're from Chicago, or even from the state of Illinois, please edify me as to the great attraction Chicago politicians hold for the voting public.  I have a book on  the shelf, by Larry L. King, titled Of Outlaws, Con Men, Whores, Politicians & Other Artists.  I told Larry that most of the categories in his title are redundant.

Socialized Medicine -- to What End?

Too few people paid any attention as the now-passed "Stimulus Package" was being bandied about by the saviour as the salvation of our economy.  But buried deep inside, and not discussed at all, was a neferious plan to put the government in charge of the nations health care.  No longer will you or even your doctor decide what treatment you should get for whatever ails you.  No, we will have another bloated bureaucracy in Washington calling the shots.  If the best treatment for you - as decided by you and your doctor - is not approved by Washington, if they think it's too expensive or unproven, you will instead be assigned an alternative treatment, one they deem "more cost effective."

Do you really suppose they are doing all this from some altruistic motive?  I would suggest that it's just another way for the entrenched politicians to dig another hook into our lives, forcing more reliance on their largesse.  Dr Steven West gave us his opinion before this boondoggle was passed.

Misdirection -- Business as Usual

The US media, in all the words they used to describe Obama’s “Stimulus Bill,” failed to tell the American people anything of significance about an included provision that will affect the health care of all Americans.  Fortunately Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg News has written an article that will likely scare anyone who works for a living.  Or one who cares about the future of this country.  The compromise bill as finally approved by the House and Senate runs to over 1,000 pages.  Obama told congress and the American people that this bill was just too important to spend time discussing its finer points and debating the disagreements.  Despite Republican objections, the Democrat majority insisted on an immediate vote.  Never mind Obama’s promises during the election campaign that he would always allow at least 48 hours for public comment, this issue had to be, according to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, passed and signed immediately for the sake of the country.  How many other provisions do you think are in this travesty?  I mean other than the $8 Billion for a high-speed railroad to bring suckers from Los Angeles to Las Vegas (in Harry Reid’s home state).  Hmmmmm?  

How Should We Then Pray?

As Christians, we are called to pray for the government that God has placed over us.  The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 13 that God has appointed those who are over us.   So the question is, how are we to pray?  Are we to pray that they succeed in their efforts, pray that their plans and policies (whether we agree with them or not) come to full fruition?  Or are we to pray that these leaders will do what is right, that they will conform their desires to God’s desires for his people, and that our country will be led in ways that accord with God’s will?  Some would suggest that we support whatever initiatives Obama puts forth.  Others advise us to pray that Obama’s policies, where they are at odds with God’s Word, would fail utterly.

Stimulus or Pure Pork? "Oink, Oink!"

Obama and the democrats who control the House and Senate have been pushing for a so-called “Stimulus Bill” that will, they say, jump-start the economy.  It was passed in the House of Representatives (244-188) although no Republicans supported it and with 11 Democrats voted against it.  The cost of the bill as passed by the House was $819 billion.  Under consideration of the Senate it grew to over $900 billion before being pared back to a mere $827 on February 9.  It includes provisions that provide for government regulation of medical care.  On February 10 the bill passed the senate at $838 billion.  Democrats from the House and Senate finally agreed on $789 billion in secret session on February 11, at which point they finally allowed TV cameras into their “deliberations.”  On Friday evening the Senate sent the bill, $787 billion, to the President’s desk.

Have you ever been advised to “Read the fine print” before signing a contract?  Do you understand that you can get yourself into trouble if you don’t know the details of an agreement you sign?  I can’t think of anyone who would obligate themselves to making payments for ten, twenty, fifty years without knowing all the details of what they were doing.  But our president and elected representatives apparently feel that details aren’t that important.  President Obama, and the Democrat majority in congress are urging Republicans to come on board, sign up to spend nearly a Trillion dollars of taxpayer IOU’s on pork-barrel projects.  I guess if you’re spending someone else’s money, the details don’t matter nearly as much as if it were your own; especially if the ones who will ultimately be paying the bill aren’t even born yet.  There are, thankfully, some voices of reason in the heartland.

The same Democrats who were fond of saying “We can’t drill ourselves out of an energy shortage” during the summer of 2008 are now telling us that “We can spend ourselves out of debt.”  Is that true?  I’m no rocket scientist, nor am I a financial wizard, so perhaps those who are might see an intelligent plan here.  My daddy taught me that the first thing to do when you get yourself in a hole is to quit diggin’.  It seems to me that if we expect to get out from under this huge national debt, creating more debt might more than a little counterproductive.

Meaningful Political Dialogue?

For a long time the only reply you could get to criticism of Democrat policies and practices was derogatory slander.  The Democrats had harbored a deep and abiding hatred of George Bush that dated back to their being denied the presidency in 2000 when they failed to steal the election for Al Gore.  Their hatred of Bush was exacerbated in 2004 when the patrician John Kerry was defeated.  That hatred, coupled with a fawning adoration of another empty suit occupied by Barack H. Obama precluded any meaningful conversation with them. The mainstream media in this country went along with the Democrats, apparently finding it easier to practice character assassination than objective journalism.  That hasn’t changed since the election; our new president is still practicing the rhetoric he and the Democrat party used to get the office, turning fear and hate mongering into an art form.  Sadly, too many in our country don’t look beyond to the substance that gives lie to the proclamation.

Bluster vs. Meaningful Action

Obama signed an executive order in early February, making much of how it would cut down “the obscene amount executives in private business make.”   New regulations put in place will supposedly limit executive compensation to $500,000 per year.  But when a journalist investigates, it turns out that, like much else in Washington, nothing much really got changed.

On February 12, Obama’s second choice for Secretary of Commerce, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, withdrew his name from consideration citing an unwillingness to participate in the so-called Stimulus Plan.

Obama: "No Lobbyists in my Administration"

 “In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.”  -- New York Times, January 22, 2009

Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"Change You Can Count On" -- or Not?

During his two-year campaign for the office of the presidency, Barack Hussein Obama consistently and continually promised his supporters that he would change the culture of Washington and eliminate “Wasteful Washington Spending.”  He said, “Do you understand that in this election the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old policies with the same old players, and expect a different result?  The change we need doesn’t come from Washington, it comes to Washington.”

How well has he done so far in keeping his promises of Change?

Obama’s original choice for Secretary of Commerce was Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico who had also been running for the Democrat presidential nomination.  Prior to being elected governor, Richardson served in the administration of Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the United Nations and as Energy Secretary.  Prior to that he was a U.S. Representative from New Mexico  On January 6, 2009, Richardson withdrew his name from consideration when it became known that he was under Federal investigation for the way he had conducted state business with a California company.  On February 4, Obama nominated Senator Judd Gregg, R-NH.  Bringing a senate Republican to the slate has the benefit of removing his influence from the Republican caucus along with making Obama seem more bipartisan.

Leon Panetta, who had served as Chief of Staff to then-president Bill Clinton from 1998-2001, was tapped by Obama to serve as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  Fans of UFO's are ecstatic at the nomination, but Panetta has no experience whatsoever with the intelligence community or counterterrorism.  Even Senate Democrats are expressing dismay at this selection.

Eric Holder, who as Deputy AG advised then-President Bill Clinton on his last day in office  to grant a pardon to fugitive Marc Rich, was appointed by Obama to serve as Attorney General.  Holder admitted to a ”lapse of judgment” in the advice he gave to Clinton,

Hillary Rodham Clinton was nominated by Obama and later approved by the Senate to be Secretary of State.  As such, she will interact with heads of state around the world.  Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, has been accepting donations from all manner of powerful leaders in countries around the world; will Ms. Clinton have baggage and obligations to them?  She has definitely benefitted financially from their donations.

Timothy Geithner was nominated by Obama to be the Secretary of the Treasury.  As such, he would be in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, the government organ charged with collecting income taxes.  As events progressed, Geithner was found to have not paid $43,000 in back taxes and penalties.  The Senate subsequently approved Geithner’s nomination, saying that the position was too important, and that Geithner was too well-qualified to not be seated.  But what kind of change is it to have a man in charge of collecting the taxes of other citizens, who ignores his own tax obligations?

Tom Daschle, Senator from South Dakota from 1986-2004, was nominated by Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.  After Daschle had left the Senate, he stayed in Washington working as a consultant and lobbyist.  Many of the businesses he lobbied were in the health care industry.  Like Geithner, Daschle was found to have been delinquent in paying his taxes.  He paid over $140,000 in back taxes and interest, reportedly still owes more.  On February 3, he withdrew his name, citing his desire not to be a distraction to the President.

Obama had named Nancy Killifer to be a new post in his administration, that of Chief Performance Officer.  She withdrew her name shortly before Daschle, citing unspecified tax problems.  Her new post was established to “scrub the federal budget.”

How Did We Get Here?

Back before the presedential election of 2008 I tried to find a Democrat who could give me a reasoned, positive  explanation as to why he/she intended to vote for Barack Obama.  I never got a response citing his qualifications, his proven abilities, legislation he had proposed and gotten passed.  Typically, a conversation would begin with my question, be followed by a rant against George W. Bush, and finish up with expressions of hatred for "Rich Republicans" and anyone who had achieved "wealth."  It seemed to me that folks were buying into Obama's message of "Change" and projecting all their hopes and desires onto him.  It didn't seem to matter what he said, it was all about what these people thought he had said.

Given Obama's sparse record both in the U.S. Senate and as a legislator in Illinois, I looked back to his previous career as a community organizer to see what he had accomplished.  Given all the complaints from Democrats regarding Sarah Palin and her lack of experience, I suspected that few of them realized their candidate was so lacking in that very quality.

Watching Obama's campaign first for the democrat nomination and then for the office of president, and seeing the response of his audience, leads the thinking observer to some interesting comparisons and conclusions.

Obama claims to be a Christian.  Given that, and his oft-repeated concern for those in our society least able to defend themselves, I might have expected that he would care for that most vulnerable part of society, unborn children.  Since 1973, millions have been killed in the name of "Freedom of Choice."  Freedom from responsibility by the potential parents, but total denial of the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" promised in the Constitution for the unborn baby.

Unfortunately, being a democrat has, for Obama, trumped his Christian confession.  He continues to support abortion on demand, even the infamous partial-birth abortion.

Before the election, I sent the following note to a friend in a discussion group.  I never got a response.

[quote]

The National Review article that began this discussion is at http://tinyurl.com/56ucue -- Read it and draw your own conclusions.  I find it compelling, especially in light of other research I've done on Senator Obama.

The folks I know who have spoken of their plans to vote for Obama haven't been able to provide a reasonable answer when I ask the simple question, "Why?"  They've offered bits and pieces taken straight from the liberal news media and Democrat advertising; I've heard the word "change" (but they don't know from what, or to what), they tell me they don't want a third term for Bush (but Bush isn't on the ballot), they complain about the current financial problems in the country and blame it on the current administration (never mind the ample proof that Bush and Republicans tried to call attention to the problems in Fannie Mae, while Democrats continued to say there was no problem with giving huge, low-interest 100% loans to people who couldn't afford the payments).

Let me tell you why I'm not voting for Obama.
1 - Obama claims to be a Christian, but is in favor of abortion on demand
2 - Obama is in favor of late term abortion, and has said he wouldn't want his daughters burdened by an unwanted pregnancy.
3 - Obama favors partial-birth abortion
4 - Obama was/is associated with Bill Ayers, an unapologetic anarchist and urban terrorist (Wikipedia calls him "a 1960's radical"). In 1995, Obama was introduced to the world of big-time Chicago politics in the home of Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn.
5 - Obama has long connections with ACORN, an organization that seeks to overwhelm the electoral system with huge numbers of fraudulent voter registrations.
6 - Obama has close ties to Tony Rezko, a Chicago political fundraiser who's been convicted of fraud and bribery.
7 - Obama claims to be a Christian, yet sat for over 20 years in the pew of a church where he heard his country regularly criticized from the pulpit.
8 - Obama, who has gotten wealthy in community organizing and other political endeavors, doesn't take care of his extended family. He criticized his grandmother as "a typical white person" after she raised him and sacrificed to help him attend college.  He has a half-brother living in poverty in Africa.
9 - I'm very concerned that the media has treated Obama like a "Rock Star" and expected us to unquestioningly go along with their appraisal.

I've recently read a couple of books that taught me a lot more about post-modernism, and some of what is called "the emergent church."  It strikes me that Truth, and especially what Francis Schaeffer called "True Truth" is in very short supply these days.  I don't think that Obama, the liberal news media, and the Democrat party have told us the truth about Obama.  I think there's a lot more to be learned, but by the time any of that is reported by an Obama-adoring media (and finally believed by an Obama-adoring public) it will be too late.  Obama is a complete, in every term of the definition, post-modernist.  After reading how he got into the Illinois senate, I believe he would say and do anything to achieve his goals.  Anything.

Consider:
-- If an Obama administration is accompanied by a Democrat senate and house of representatives, they will be able to enact any legislation they wish.  Obama has already said he wants to spread the wealth around (yours, not his own). If you earn enough to be required to pay taxes, that should be enough to scare you.  If you're on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid it should scare you more.  If you own a business, get ready to go on welfare.
-- It is likely that from one to three justices of the Supreme Court will retire in the next few years.  Would you prefer a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution as it was written, or a court that would interpret it as they'd prefer it to have been written?
-- Obama believes that American greatness is wrong, that we in this country should not be better off than the citizens of any other country.  I believe that if government got out of the way, there is no limit to the things that this or any other country could achieve.
-- Obama believes that government bureaucracy is better able to redistribute the wealth of the citizenry than are the citizens themselves.  I believe that we the people, who have earned our wages by the sweat of our brow, should be free to practice charity as we wish.
-- Obama believes that government can administer better health care, at lesser cost, than private enterprise.  I have never seen a government bureaucracy that has a clue what “customer service" means, let alone "price containment."  Remember those $800 hammers?
-- You've probably heard that Social Security will be bankrupt in less than 30 years unless changes are made.  A couple years back, GW Bush proposed making some changes, and the Democrats screamed bloody murder because Bush would have left some decisions to the people.  What do you suppose Obama will do to fix the system?  That's right, increased taxes.
-- Obama is a lawyer.  Shakespeare was right.

So I return to my original question for you, Xxxxxx: why are you going to vote for Obama?  What is it about him that is so compelling to you?  While I would not have grouped Obama with the Reichsfuhrer, I agree with Yyyyyy that he is dangerous to our country, will bring it closer to a socialist state, and set in place appointed Federal judges that will require many years to correct and may well lead to infanticide and any manner of other mischief.

[end quote]

My question for the thinking democrat remains.  What were you thinking of?  I look forward to hearing from you.