Obama chose as his response to the question of one regret, probably the only truly bipartisan and solidly moral vote he ever made. Who in their right mind could, if given the chance to look back over years of their life, would choose to regret trying to save someone who couldn’t save herself?

Perhaps this gives us all further incite into the  mind of a man who goes far beyond almost anyone else in the pro-choice camp. This despite the professed RACISM of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion supporters.

As sick as his regret about attempting to save Schiavo’s life actually makes Obama’s stance consistent with his other views. Barack Obama clearly promotes a culture of death for those who cannot speak for themselves.

If you support life, don’t support Barack Obama.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. For more about this, and the most recent atrocity, check out the article here:

“Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day,” she told WND. “They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion.

“There’s a lot of surprise out there. Planned Parenthood does an excellent job of covering up the facts,” she said.

Sanger supported eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

At one point, she lamented “the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Another time, Sanger wrote, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Apparently murder of innocents is not enough to indict Planned Parenthood as an atrocity in the minds of Americans. Perhaps ugly unabashed racist rantings will help open our eyes to the evils of this organization

Barack believe America owes the LGBT community, but what does America owe it? The “right” to marry? Marriage is nowhere guaranteed in the constitution. Further marriage by any major dictionary is a union between a man and a woman. They want to fundamentally rewrite the language of the nation to accommodate their lifestyle. They want sexual orientation, cross dressing, and transgenderism to be protected classes, privy to the same protections as women and ethnic minorities. If this happens, it will be the first time a non-physical changeable condition will be protected under federal discrimination law. The advocacy of this makes a mockery of the whole civil rights movement and criminalizes the thought and actions and beliefs of Christianity which are based on the Bible.

Gay City News Endorsement (From Barack Obama’s official campaign website)
(Bold words were highlighted by me)

In a presidential inaugural address that inspired a teenager from Hope, Arkansas named Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy famously urged Americans to focus not on what the country could do for them, but on what contributions they could make to the nation.

Mind you, we in the LGBT community are not yet nearly at the point where this nation has made good on the contributions it owes to our lives, our families, our well-being, even our equal citizenship. Faced with the choice of two progressive Democrats who have spoken at length and with conviction about the challenges facing our lives, we still don’t have the luxury of picking a candidate who will advocate for our right to marry. We must yet take it on faith that the next president will have the fortitude to insist that Congress - including too many stragglers within the Democratic Party - open up the nation’s military to out gay and lesbian patriots. It is far from certain that the next time the Democratic Congress takes up an employment nondiscrimination measure it will include transgendered Americans as well as gay men and lesbians among those protected.

But after seven years of George W. Bush, and compared against the prospect of either John McCain or Mitt Romney, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama truly offer hope to LGBT Americans that help is on the way.

Given that the two Democratic contenders share a similar, generally friendly and supportive posture toward LGBT Americans, we ought to think about the message our choice sends about a fundamental question - what our politics should be all about. We are finding our place here and there at the table, but we have also spent much of our life on the outside. The nation needs to hear our views on how American politics can accommodate new voices in the mix.

Judged by that measure and taking full stock of how the Democratic nomination contest has unfolded, we believe the choice is clear.

Gay City New endorses Barack Obama.

Because the government does not have  a special recognition of 2 people’s relationship does not mean they are unequal citizens. I would rather America remove any and all financial, tax, and social benefits of Marriage than to have the meaning of the word redefined so a certain segment of the population can feel better about itself and how the government endorses its relationships.

As we near the end of Black History Month, let us consider the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

That is the dream, whereby man would look beyond the surface and judge men by their values, beliefs and standards. Much progress has been made in that direction in America.

We have gone from a time where the legal system looked another way when a black man whistled at a white woman. Racism has been evicted from America’s public square. By and large it only finds refuge in the hearts of men (and women) who’s hearts are hardened, who’s minds are narrow, who’s only claim to self worth is the putting down of another based on the color of their skin.

Today, however, skin color has again returned to America’s public square. As we race towards the 2008 presidential elections, change has become the buzz word. In many circles the prospect of a Black or woman president has trumped all other issues.

McCain, Bush, the Clintons are painted as stogy old white establishment types. Relative youth and skin color are trumpeted as the best assets of a candidate this year, in 2008.
The truth of the matter is this: once you peel off the surface, there is no substantial difference in the agendas that will be pursued by a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

There is a song that has been co-opted in some areas as a sort of theme song for this years election season: Matchbox 20’s “How far we’ve come.” The music video to this song seems to attempt a historical chronology of the women’s and civil rights movements, cumulating in cheering images of Barack Obama’s and Hillary’s supporters.

There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Movement and certain aspects of the women’s movement have legitimately leveled the social and economic playing fields. However, the problem comes when the cumulation of these efforts is presented as Hillary and Obama. The Euphoria over the potential of a “first” black/woman candidate has completely hijacked democrats and would be social progressives. Any attack that would be directed at Obama’s policies or values can, and sometimes is, twisted into racism. Gender and skin tone becomes a defense in liu of answers.

Barack Obama himself says he is gaging racism by whether or not whites vote for him.

This is audacious in every sense of the word. Ignoring the issues and diving straight for the cover all. I would vote for the President regardless of his or her color, that stands closest to what is best for America.

Barack Obama’s massive spending/taxing plans, advocacy for homosexuality, blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion views to the left of NARAL and NOW, coolness towards Israel, and his flippant attitude towards drugs will send this nation on a crash course with economic recession and moral decline. Ultimately the other 2 candidates, Hillary and McCain, are watered down versions of Obama’s radicalism (though in Hillary’s case only very slightly so).

It will send the message: Skin matters more than issues.

It sure seemed like we’ve come along way since Dr King’s famous speech. However, here we are as a nation still judging people by the color of their skin.

It will only be a matter of time before we are all judged for our actions this year. This election has the potential to change the heart and soul of a nation.

If you LOVE America, if you sincerely want the best for this country look behind the smooth talking, the glitzy publicity war, the buzz words and rock concert style slogans and chantings.

Look at the issues. Pray. We’re not voting for the next American Idol here. Image and stage presence are not going to save us all.

King was murdered for his bold position, that all men are equal. If you love civil rights, if you support on any level the legacy he has handed us down through the civil rights movement, then reject the politics of “famous firsts.” Focus on the issues. Focus on America.

Let’s live the dream.

After perusing some new information, I can no longer truthfully claim that presidential contender Barack Obama is a socialist. It seems that Obama’s personal mentor, referred to in one of his books as “Frank” is Frank Marshal Davis. Davis is who Obama credits with helping him to find his identity. Frank Marshal Davis is a Communist. A favorable article about Frank M Davis still shows the communist aspect(Note communist buzz words like fascism, class struggle and imperialism).

And of course World Net Daily, has an article that ties in some of Barrack Obama’s current political and social communist leanings.

From the article:

Remember, we had a president who admitted to “smoking pot” but boldly and sincerely claimed “I did not inhale.” I would further add that the shock troops of Lenin, Mao the Viet Cong and Castro were likely not “hard-core academic Marxists” and yet they believed, they placed HOPE in the concept of communism, that it would eliminate inequality, sexism, racism, or whatever problems they were facing.

Lenin himself “campaigned” on the hope of PEACE! BREAD! LAND! Barrack Obama’s campaign is focused on PEACE! (ending the iraq war and raising peace time spending to the current war level) HEALTHCARE! (that would raise everyone’s cost of living and cost some there livings) HOPE! (a vague hope that seems solidly grounded in “change”).

Interestingly, the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia promising change to a citizenry that was tired of Czarist corruption. What they brought was one of the most abusive, abrasive and intrusive regime of the 2oth century.

So basically, Barack is NOT a socialist, he is a Communist speaking in the language of “liberal democracy and socialism” He hides his radical views in charismatic speech, catchy graphics and clever phrases. He will press for greater social spending and taxing than any president in history.

For those who think Communism is dead, consider this: over a billion people live in an openly communist country, China. The progressive income tax, universal health care, massive social spending (RE: Medicare, welfare, social security, etc) as all tenets of progressive socialism/communism, and are used as tools to extract money from private individuals and companies and give it to the government to trap the downtrodden.

I conclude with the words of a self proclaimed American Socialist:

– Norman Thomas, American socialist

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending…

And where’s that additional 500 billion dollars going to come from?

My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades - jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology

From what programs will this money be transferred, or better to ask, how much will taxes be raised to cover this economic spending? Those 5 million people aren’t going to work for free. Massive state companies were set up in China, and only survive by subsidy, in fact they are even selling some of them off.

I’ve paid for every element of this economic agenda - by ending a war that’s costing us billions, closing tax loopholes for corporations, putting a price on carbon pollution, and ending George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

By the way, those corporations are NOT going to absorb that added tax burden, it will be passed along to john doe consumer. Carbon pollution? Now that’s nice and vague. What are you going to do, add a carbon tax to power plants and other factories? It may sound nice to revoke those tax cuts for the “wealthiest 2%” but when you have a so-called “progressive” income tax those in the top brackets are paying the largest percentage of their incomes.

I’ve proposed a fund that would provide direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud.

Hmm, I smell more taxes

I won’t wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage - I’ll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it’s not just a minimum wage, but a living wage.

Sound’s like a recipe for spiraling inflation. Whenever it becomes more expensive to produce a product, that cost is passed on the consumer, or the company finds a way to make the product more efficienty (RE: Fewer workers)

In addition to cutting costs for working families, we also need to help them save more - especially for retirement. That’s why we’ll require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings.

So, in addition to the necessary tax increases to fund federal social and economic spending, the government is going to be telling you what to do with YOUR money. Very nice to say a “small percentage” when for the poorest, every small percent helps!

..ban [credit card] rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on late fees.

Again, this sounds like a nice way to “stick it to the credit cards” however, it will only reduce credit available. As a [likely] unintentional side affect, this reduction could actually be good in the long run if it forces people to live more within their means.

Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we’d ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Here’s where we get into the real meat-and-potatoes of tax mania, the Universal Health Care cure-all. The thing about the government providing the health care that Obama seems to be ignorant of here, is that there would likely be little if any private market left for health insurance, hence insurance companies would cease offering health insurance, in large part to the high cost of pre-existing conditions. Example: Person needs high cost surgery, buys health insurance, gets the surgery and drops the insurance. The companies will just cease the coverage rather than see the complete draining of their monies.

And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t. Well I believe the reason people don’t have health care isn’t because no one’s forced them to buy it, it’s because no one’s made it affordable - and that’s what we’ll do when I am President.

Presumably, Hillary would offer the same kind of “affordable” health insurance. You dodge the issue of whether or not you’d force it by merely addressing that you’d make it “affordable.” But if your going for so-called “universal health care” you are going to have to opt people into the system. Thanks but no thanks

Source for Obama Speech Quotes: barackobama.com

Looks like a whole slew of so-called conservatives have jumped on board the McCain bandwagon. It is boiling down to a choice like God gave kind David (after he sinned a great sin): Choose which of these I will do to you: Fall before your enemies, be killed by your enemies, or be plagued by the hand of God for 3 days.

No matter who wins, (save a miracle upturn by Huckabee) they will welcome with open arms both blanket amnesty for (ILLEGAL!) immigrants and gay marriage, as well as attempting to import that wonderful European socialist invention federally funded so-called universal health care.

Wait, before you say “but it will help the children!” Think about these things:

With the government’s stellar record of managing social spending, do we really want them managing OUR healthcare, (and taxing us like the dickens!) to do it?

I for one don’t. And even if I can afford it, Hillary, I want to have the final decision on whether or not I want to opt in (and I don’t!).

Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s most socialist of them all:

3. McCain
2. Hillary
1. Obama (Endorsed by John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Fidel Castro, I mean this guy must be a borderline communist) (In fairness, the Castro endorsement went to Hillary too).

It seems that despite all the problems we have in our own country, that Obama wants to spend almost a trillion dollars abroad (in areas where corruption is even more widespread than it is here)(and in addition to what we as a nation already spend on overseas aid). Would a father let his family starve on the streets while he provided for his neighbors? Would he force those same starving family members to fund his absurd campaign?