The Web of Obama

2nd Amendment Case

2nd Amendment Case .

This could be very influential when it comes to gun rights. What worries me, though, and this is not made explicit in this AP article: President Bush and VP Cheney have filed briefs to the court, with Democratic support and signatures, in favor of a ban for personal firearm possession. Everywhere firearm possession has been banned, crime has gone up, because criminals know there is a good chance that their victims will be defenseless...

"Enjoy" some of Rev. Wright's church.

Number 1

Number 2

Number 3

Could you vote for a person who goes to church to listen to this man? I couldn't, nor could I vote for someone who goes to the church of "Rev." Fred Phelps, that ultra-right wing, gay-hating demagogue.

Obama and Rev. Wright

Let's see if Media Matters does an update on this:

Media Matters is criticizing ABC News for not reporting that "Obama disavowed" Rev. Wright's incendiary speeches, including "God Damn America." See that here: Media Matters Criticizes ABC News

Now, look at this: The headline states "Obama disagrees with Pastor's 'God Damn America.' See it here: ABC News Actually Reports on Obama's Criticism -- of the "statements" and ABC News

Will Media Matters say that ABC News has in fact posted this story? Will Media Matters say that Mr. Obama accused ABC News of "cherry picking" a "quote," when in fact they reported on a SERMON?

No, just as they won't criticize Mr. Olbermann for calling President Bush a "fascist," even though they criticize Glenn Beck for calling John Edwards a "Communist."

Colleges and Guns

Guns in Oklahoma Schools

This would be a step in the right direction -- I certainly would feel safer knowing that one of my trained classmates could be armed in case a suicidal nutjob wants to shoot up the school. Now, we are all sitting ducks. Do criminals "follow the signs" and "follow the rules" not to bring guns in? No.

Wiretapping Bill Passed by House

No More Immunity for Telecoms

The House passed a wiretapping bill that would not give telecommunications industries (e.g., phone companies) immunity for conducting wiretapping for national security.

Bush is going to veto it anyway...but this will undermine national security if a Dem. gets the White house or the Dems get a veto-proof majority (look at Republican Congressional Resignations on Google). Why would a phone company allow the government to access security measures when it is not even sure if it would be immune from billion dollar lawsuits.

The Dems are playing a game of catch-22; if Bush okays the bill, the telecom industries could not help the government without fears of bankruptcy. Then a national attack happens, and Bush can be blamed for this law. If Bush vetoes the bill, Bush is then "undermining national security" by not accepting this harmful compromise.

Spreading the Word from "An American Warning"

This blog post is from a man on MySpace, and I think he's right on.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=266140203&blogID=366253567

How Much More Are You Going To Take?????
Category: News and Politics

An American Warning - 312/08
www.AnAmericanWarning.com
www.myspace.com/AnAmericanWarning

I want you all to take note of what exactly is going on… then I want everything to think about the LONG TERM rather than this moment right here.

It’s almost inevitable at this point that history in the making is only history repeating. I say this because all anyone has to do to see where exactly this whole thing is going, is to simply watch the History Channel and watch a few specials over any past civilization.

But before I go on, I want to highlight Ben Franklin for a moment. What a great man! A very smart man too. Ben said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Do you think he was talking about Social Security or Welfare? Or maybe he was talking about items like Universal Healthcare. I like to think he was talking about the constant buildup of all programs and services that come from the United States Treasury and hence forth build the government to a size that by all definition is unconstitutional.

Here is the deal my friends. I want you to ask yourself what the chances are that we will have some type of Universal Healthcare within the next few years. Be honest with yourself. If you said the chances are pretty good… you’re probably right.

So I want you to consider a few things now. Consider the fact that this country is headed (if not already there) into a recession. Which by the way… that is literally the least of our worries at the moment. Anyway… so with this recession, money begins to become tight. Even for the government. Let me touch on this for a moment.

This stimulus package that everyone is going to get this tax season… this "extra money" the government is "providing" for the American people… you may be wise to consider your options. The money (which was borrowed from China) was given to the American people in order to spend on products (which more than likely will be Chinese) in an effort to help stimulate the economy. There is an old saying that kind of talks about this… hmm… robbing Peter to pay Paul… that’s close enough…

So before I get too far off that subject… let me ask a question… if we can’t even afford the stimulus package… how are we going to be able to afford "Universal Healthcare"? Think about it for a half a second.

Think about this… the baby boomers started retiring in January of this year. They can’t even afford their retirement… Reuters reported today that a third of Americans 50 and over are not confident they will have enough money to retire, and more than two-thirds expect to keep working well into old age, according to a report, commissioned by retirement services firm SecurePath by Transamerica.

We already established that social security is going to be completely gone shortly. Now… I want you to pay close attention to this next passage from the report. "A huge percentage of people say they rely on government because it’s the one thing they know is dependable," said Will Prest, chief marketing officer at Transamerica Retirement Management in St. Paul, Minnesota.

So let’s look at this again… recession, social security gone, baby boomers retiring, can’t afford the current stimulus package, etc…. How on earth are we going to be able to afford Universal Healthcare? Are we going to keep on borrowing from a Communist Military Dictatorship? Cause that’s sounds like a plan! What other options are there?

Oh ya… I’m sorry I forgot the words of our major candidates….
"Raise taxes", "Raise taxes on fuel", "take from you and give to others" because maybe the lifetime of 60 – 80 percent of my money that they tax isn’t enough already… And I almost forgot Hillary Clinton’s "garnish wages" comment.

I’m amazed that people are buying into too.

The government… all knowing… all great… please run my life… use my money… I don’t care that you have absolutely no knowledge of how to do it… I don’t care that you bankrupt social security… I don’t care that you don’t take care of our veterans… I don’t care that you send our border patrol agents to jail after asking them "secure" the borders… I don’t care that you interrogate old ladies at the airport instead of the guy who looks like he has 8 cereal boxes under his shirt… I don’t care that you attack my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to my Bill of Rights… I don’t care that you don’t listen to me… I don’t care if you’re corrupt and tyrannical… I don’t care that you send my soldiers off to war and then don’t let them fight it… I don’t care that you tried numerous times shove Criminal Amnesty down my throat… I don’t care that you signed the SPP (sponsored by the CFR) without my consent… and I’m not even worried that you care more about those who aren’t even American more than you do your own people… please… how can I give more of my sovereignty to you?

I’m so angry! But unfortunately we do in fact live in the shadow of the all mighty Rome. The great republic that become an empire. The great empire that enslaved over a third of the people. And the great empire which crumbed from within.

Well America… it’s been an interesting ride… unfortunately; I don’t think the tracks at the end of the ride are still there…

Damn it people… we can stop this. It just takes a little effort and a lot of common sense. Why are there only a handful of people who can see this and actually say something? Why are so many of you… who can see this… so afraid to stand up?

By all means... pass this on... repost it... etc.

Selective Hearing: The Tactics of Media Matters and Keith Olbermann in Smearing Glenn Beck

First, I will provide you a transcript and link of a conversation that occurred on Glenn Beck’s Headline News Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyifSg5RtXw).

“BECK: Let me ask you, because I got -- I get so much e-mail on this, and I think a lot of people do, and I`ve only got a couple of seconds. They say Glenn, you and the media, you`ve got to wake up. Barack Obama`s making people faint and cry and everything else. And he`s drawing people in. There are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton that actually believe he might be the anti-Christ. Odds that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ?

HAGEE: No chance. He has a lot of charisma. There`s a media love affair with him right now. He is a very formidable political person. I believe the best leader for America in the future is John McCain.

BECK: Thank you very much, Pastor.

Back in just a second. That`s good news, at least where I stand.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, it`s good to know that Barack Obama is not the anti-Christ.

Welcome back to the program.

Keith Olbermann, in his joke of a television show that draws less viewers at 8:00 P.M. than O’Reilly draws in his rerun at 11:00 P.M., merely spoke Glenn Beck’s statements in a tone that did not at all reflect Beck’s intonation. Obviously, one could look at this statement “There are people – and they this about Bill Clinton that actually believe he might be the anti-Christ. Odds that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ” and see that Beck is mocking the reactionaries who blindly insert Revelation for every charismatic person or weather change the world sees. I do not see how it could be any clearer – Beck is MOCKING those who think Obama is the anti-Christ. He even follows that up by self-depreciatively saying “good to know that Barack Obama is not the anti-Christ,” which is obviously sarcasm. Those criticizing Beck for insinuating any false charges must feel that Beck previously and actually thought Obama was/is the anti-Christ, or must not have listened/read the entire clip or transcript.

Obama and the Inconvenient Truth about Race

The misconceptions and media omissions about Barack Obama’s relationship with “race” is simply incredulous, and the love affair has gone on too long. Saturday Night Live, hardly a beacon of conservatism, has noted well the media’s gushing adoration for the supposed reincarnation of JFK. Mr. Obama has used race as an ally, but will soon have to make a decision that might make or break his political aspirations. Let’s first establish and preconceptions about Mr. Obama and race.

Point one: various ads on the Internet and blacks have noted that Mr. Obama would be “the first African American President.” That simply is not true. Obama is of a mixed race heritage: black and white. Just wanted to clear that up.

Point two: Mr. Obama associates himself with (and attends a church headed by) racist, separatist people with dangerous points of view. Mr. Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, stated “not God Bless American, but God Damn America” and blamed the United States for, among other things, 9/11 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1). Mr. Wright, who married Mr. and Mrs. Obama and baptized their children, opposes the United States’ assistance of Israel. Mr. Wright awarded his church’s highest honor to Louis Farrakhan, a man who reflects Wright’s anti-Semitic views by calling Judaism a “dirty religion” (not a gutter religion, though the meanings are pretty close). Mr. Farrakhan also has stated, “White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jul/31/race.world1). Just visit the previous website and you can see a slew of Farrakhan’s statements.

What does this have to do with Obama? Mr. Obama’s preacher, spiritual advisor, and (at least minor) influence espouses a “black values system” and a racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic point of view. Mr. Obama’s preacher and church awards Louis Farrakhan, who is not a Christian, with a medal of honor, even though Mr. Obama’s church is Christian? Huh??? What??? Has Mr. Obama denounced Mr. Wright? No. Has he separated himself from Mr. Wright and his conspiracy theories about 9/11, including the famous “Jews knew about it” rhetoric? No. Mr. Obama has failed to separate himself from these racist leaders, and he is not being held to scrutiny for it.

What if a Republican went to a church headed by David Duke? Or a “white values system?” Perhaps this is demonstrating the frustration levied by Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, and I quote, "If [Barack] Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept" (http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8533832).

If Mr. Obama does not separate himself from these incendiary rhetoricians, he will lose an election that Democrats should be favored to win. If the Democrats, and I am including the mainstream, drive-by media, do not scrutinize Obama more, they will create a puffed-up candidate who will fail miserably in the Fall, due to a high level of suspicion about his racial politics.

Heath Shuler—A Democrat I Can Support

Tonight, March 12, 2008, Glenn Beck had Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC) on his CNN Headline News program near the 7:30 P.M. (EDT) hour. While I am a libertarian who tends to support Republicans by default, I really like this Heath Shuler fellow, and not just because he played football.

Let me give you the scoop: Heath Shuler introduced a bill that would be much stronger on illegal immigration than the ones supported by many Republicans (including McCain). Effectively, Shuler’s plan would do the following: punish employers for illegally hiring illegal aliens; create a border that would be secure and real; force illegal aliens to return home and go to the back of the line; would NOT allow illegal aliens to jump in line of those who are trying to immigrate legally.

Further, Congressman Shuler believes that regardless of political affiliation, meaningful legislation needs to be done. He makes a good point—about the only thing Democrats and Republicans are doing is figuring out how and who to give pork barrel spending to. Legislation that will make the United States safer WITHOUT infringing on any Constitutional liberties should be embraced, not dismissed as “partisan.” A person like Congressman Shuler, who is willing to put aside party labels and expectations, is someone I can vote for with a clear conscience—regardless of whether he is a “D,” “R,” “L,” “C,” or whatever else there is.

The Case Against Obama, part 1 – Judges and the Law

“A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge's only obligation - and it's a solemn obligation - is to the rule of law.” – Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Amid the rock star hype given to Senator Barack Obama, people of various political stripes have had great difficulty explaining exactly what Senator Obama would change. People have made the connection that “Obama=change,” but virtually nobody has entertained the specifics of Obama and change. That is okay with Mr. Obama, because his type of change falls in 1 of 2 categories: 1) style, or 2) collectivist, statist. Let me explain three ways in which Mr. Obama’s proposed “changes” will be bad for the country.

First, Mr. Obama has a view of the role of Supreme Court justices that would be tantamount to spotting an underdog team in basketball ten points to start the game. From the New York Times and a Democratic Presidential debate on November 15, 2007, Mr. Obama is quoted as saying:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and I -- when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the court. And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=39&oref=slogin)

Let’s delve deeper into this quote. Mr. Obama feels that the court should “protect people who may be vulnerable…those who don’t have a lot of clout.” Article III of the United States Constitution states, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…” (my emphasis) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html). The Constitution defines the role of justices as ruling on “cases or controversies” according to The Constitution and the Laws of the United States. In other words, nowhere in The Constitution is there any mention of “protecting people who may be vulnerable.” The role of judges is to rule according to the law, regardless of the status, race, gender, or other circumstances of those involved in a case. If it so happens that a vulnerable person or minority is in the right, the Court must rule in its favor—but the Court does not rule in their favor out of a feeling of sorrow.

I’ll relate this to sports: the best analogy of a judge is to that of a referee or official. Could you imagine a head of referees or Conference saying that role of referees is to provide a “level playing field” for those who may not have the most talented team? Could you imagine an officiating crew “giving points” to smaller schools because they would be “vulnerable” in playing a team such as Duke, North Carolina, or UCLA?

Let me make this personal, too. What if you had to go to court and your opponent was “vulnerable,” according to Mr. Obama’s determination of “vulnerable?” Moreover, what if you were in the right in your case—but the courts ruled to help or assuage the “vulnerable” person or group. Would you want a court to determine cases based on a preconceived notion or “handicap” of the parties? Or would you want an impartial, “just the facts” Court?

What I Value

Hello out there in the blogosphere! I want to spend this first post explaining what I will blog about.

Politics, philosophy, and sports are the three areas that will receive the most time on this blog, in that order. Hopefully, my writing will be transparent and eloquent enough to explain clearly my views on the role of a limited government, and individual liberty. Sometimes, I may review a book, praise a philosophical idea, or criticize one. Also, I am an avid sports enthusiast, especially in basketball and baseball.

I will not write frilly articles that are merely "feel good" or opinion pieces. Everything you read will be inter-textually cited, which means you will be able to go to an original source and see where I derived my information or quotes. In other words, I will not be like Media Matters, a website that misquotes and removes context in their inflammatory rhetoric.

Since this is a first point, I have tried to write "straight laced" and without sarcasm. Future entries will feature sarcasm, allusions, and references. However, for your benefit, I will link allusions as best as possible, so that everyone can understand. While I may be able to quote Shakespeare off hand, others may be able to reference Einstein in a way I would not understand; therefore, such allusions will only be used when they make a point more clear, not simply to show that I know a quote.

Thank you for reading! Please leave comments and facilitate debate. Please, when you disagree with me, explain why. I could very well be wrong about an issue, and I enjoy learning the truth, not just the facade of believing I am right because nobody expresses disagreement.

Thank you for your readership!