‘Twas the night before elections.. and All thru the Town…

‘Twas the night before elections

And all through the town

Tempers were flaring

Emotions all up and down!

I, in my bathrobe

With a cat in my lap

Had cut off the TV

Tired of political crap.

 

When all of a sudden

There arose such a noise

I peered out of my window

Saw Obama and his boys

 

They had come for my wallet

They wanted my pay

To give to the others

Who had not worked a day!

He snatched up my money

And quick as a wink

Jumped back on his bandwagon

As I gagged from the stink

**

He then rallied his henchmen

Who were pulling his cart

I could tell they were out

To tear my country apart!

**

‘ On Fannie, on Freddie,

On Biden and Ayers!

On Acorn, On Pelosi’

He screamed at the pairs!

**

They took off for his cause

And as he flew out of sight

I heard him laugh at the nation

Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!

**

So I leave you to think

On this one final note-

IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM

GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

Advertisements

How can Obama pledge to uphold a Constitution he doesn’t believe in? Will seek judges based on “their Empathy”, not Justice

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

“The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

[Commentary] Chad Crowe

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University.

“Joe The Plumber” finds out OBAMA’s 3 BIG LIES !!

>>>> Are these characteristics becoming of a Presidential Candidate?<<<<<

sssshhhh… don’t worry: nobody’s gonna see you vote for McCain when your in that booth!!

Brief summary:

  • Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5 percent tax increase on almost all taxpayers.
  • Obama wants to almost double Capital Gains tax to almost 30 percent (own Mutual funds or 401k’s?).
  • He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.
  • Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared.
  • Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.
  • He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department.
  • Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country.
  • In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! THAT, my friends, is INFANTICIDE!
  • He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you believe the media, ‘Joe the Plumber’ is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type — he is a true threat to the “Anointed One” — Barack Obama — and his chances of becoming president of the United States.

This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it’s true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.

Why? Because he’s an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.

One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.

Just by coincidence — and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence — Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.

When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question — something the press has not done during the past two years — the Anointed One wilted.

How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money?  The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!

As Obama put it, shouldn’t Joe want to help him “spread the wealth around?”

With that one remark, Obama’s disguise as a moderate crumbled.

Here are just three of Obama’s biggest lies:

Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.

There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.

Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as “rich.”

Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe’s rich too. Under Obama, he won’t be able to hire new employees and grow his business.

Joe’s not alone. Obama says he’ll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you’ll pay 7 percent!

Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.

Baloney!

Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.

Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.

He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.

Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared.

There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.

Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America
more secure.

Another outright lie.

In an age when crazies like Iran’s Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to “destroy” the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” Obama said.

He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more “secure,” Obama plans to disarm us.

In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?

No, we can’t.

Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.

He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.

He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.

But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver’s licenses as a state senator in Illinois.

He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive!  He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”

Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama — Go Here Now.

Exposing the Truth

Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.

When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.

Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.

And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.

Finally, McCain is fighting back — just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.

But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.

Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!

But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.

We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.

Send a Donation Today to Help Our Cause — Go Here Now.

You Can Make a Difference

This is why the National Republican Trust PAC is already implementing a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.

We are taking out powerful television ads, Internet ads, and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.

We plan to target key states that can make a difference — but we need your help to do it.

As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.

A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.

But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — any amount you can afford will help.

Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.

Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.

Please help today — Donate by Going Here Now.

Posted by our friends at NEWSMAX

Where his heart is: Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income.

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview — conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago — delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have “nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut.”

“Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country,” Burton said..

“As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up — not from the corridors of Washington. … And so Obama’s point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process,” Burton continued.

John McCain’s campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change,'” said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

“Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench,” Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it’s a matter of degree. He added that Obama’s outlook on that system hasn’t changed.

“It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn’t do that enough, and I think that’s probably the big point in this tape,” York said.

“You’ve got to take him at his word,” York added. “It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time.”

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

“Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we’ve seen in the past that he’s willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending,” McCain said.

Click here to hear the interview.

Rep. Frank: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases; thee’s plenty of Rich People We can Tax

“Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.”(CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” 10/20/08)”

Click Here To View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
310 First Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 – (202) 863-8500 – www.gop.com
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
SOURCE Republican National Committee
 http://www.gop.com

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved End of Story