You’re Freakin’ Me Out Dude!

Posted on October 30th, 2008 in United States Politics by rfburnhertz

I admit I’m not to keen on the thought of you, Barack Obama, being the president of these United States of America, but these last couple of weeks every time you and your buddy Joe open your yaps you really weird me out.

You got Slow Joe Biden out there telling us that something major is going to take place in the first six months of your administration. He makes it sound like hell is going to rain down and you, the messiah, are going to save our sorry, needful, can’t do for ourselves, butts.

The conspiracy theorist in me has got his eye’s peeled for a generated crisis.

Then you go out on your stupid infomercial and tell us that you are going to “rebuild the military”, to top it off you add the following:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded

What the crap is that?
Has a kind of freaky “Fahrenheit 451″ sound to it.

Holy hell it sounds like some crazy force of armed civilian code enforcers.
99% of my mind tells me this is not what you mean, but there is that 1% that just isn’t too sure.

As I looked into this further it seems that this IS NOT the first time you have made mention of such a security force. Doesn’t surprise me that the media has made little to no mention of this.

I have found at least four references to you having previously made this same statement, none of those four are from the MSM (surprise).

American Thinker a July, 2008 article.
Hot Air also from July, 2008.
World Net Daily September, 2008.
A second article from World Net Daily.
It’s the last article that will inform us just what might meant by a ‘Civilian national security force’, not that there is much comfort in this possible explanation either.

I am more inclined to believe the take of The American Thinker article which say’s:

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature “corps,” as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It’s a message like the one America’s home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

“Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans…”

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

The article continues:

Voters haven’t paid much attention to his “Service” plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the “civilian national security force” would be just as “well-funded” as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, “billions and billions” of dollars. Here’s how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut “tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let’s imagine “tens of billions” in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his “civilian national security force” to be “just as well-funded” would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon’s reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That’s $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he’s never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it’s not clear if math means anything to him at all.

So maybe my neighbor, who might be a part of this ‘Civilian National Security Force’, won’t shoot me after all, but it doesn’t make our economic future look any brighter does it?

Either way it stinks of extreme socialism…
more commonly known as Marxism.

Job Creators Prefer John McCain

Posted on October 17th, 2008 in General by rfburnhertz

Chief Executive Magazine conducted a recent poll and found that 74% of job creators prefer a McCain presidency and believe it is McCain who is best able to take the economy in a job growth direction.

Read the article here.

It is clear jobcreating Business leaders chose McCain over Obama largely because his policies are seen as progrowth, whereas Obama’s policies are viewed as redistributive and anti-growth.

For some months during this Presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs’ attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. In CE’s most recent poll in September, 751 respondents, more than double the usual number of business leaders, made their voices heard on their Presidential choice. By a four-to-one margin CEOs support Senator John McCain over his rival, Senator Barack Obama. More to the point, a thundering 74 percent majority say they fear the consequences of an Obama presidency, compared to only 19 percent who fear a McCain presidency.

During this period CE also asked the people who create jobs what it will take to get our engine of job creation going strong. We first asked CEOs what policies and approaches would work best for business, energy policy and job creation. Subsequently, we asked CEOs which Presidential candidate’s policies were best aligned with these prescriptions for growth.

 

Obama

McCain

Energy Policy

C-

C+

Economic/Fiscal Policy

D+

B-

Foreign Policy

D+

B

Defense

D+

B+

Environmental Policy

C+

C+

Educational Policy

C+

C+

Tax Policy

D

B-

Healthcare

C-

C+

Overall GPA

C-

B-

Obama Lied, Babies Died

Posted on October 16th, 2008 in Pro-Life, United States Politics by rfburnhertz

Obama again lied in the third and final Presidential debate last night.
He lied about many things, in particular I’d like to point out in this posting that he lied about his vote in the Judiciary Committee while an Illinois State Senator.

I am speaking of his vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which simply would have provided for life saving actions to be taken when a child was born alive after a failed abortion.

From WND:

In a column today, she [Jill Stanek] asserts that last night, in the third and final debate with GOP rival Sen. John McCain, Obama “obfuscated his radical record of abandoning abortion survivors to die in hospital soiled utility rooms.”

The subject was raised by McCain.

Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that,” the GOP senator said.

Obama responded, arguing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he opposed, “said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade.”

“LIE,” writes Stanek. “BAIPA simply stated all born alive babies became legally protected persons immediately upon birth, no matter what gestational age and no matter if unwanted abortion survivors.”

Continues Stanek, “Obama further obfuscated his radical record of abandoning abortion survivors to die in hospital soiled utility rooms by adding ‘there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment. …’

“LIE,” Stanek writes. “Illinois abortion law to this day only protects abortion survivors their abortionist deems fit to live. The potential for subjective assessments in these cases is clear to all but Obama. In fact, Obama opposed closing this loophole by voting against legislation to mandate a second doctor be present at deliveries of all live abortion survivors to independently assess their viability.”

She notes Obama not only opposed the state’s proposed protection for infants, “he took a leadership role to kill it. His website still contains an ABC News quote from the Illinois Planned Parenthood CEO at the time stating ‘Obama approached her’ to strategize to defeat BAIPA as well as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Barack Obama actually sought out PP to help him defeat a bill protecting abortion survivors.”

More Obama Lies; Infanticide

Posted on October 15th, 2008 in Pro-Life, United States Politics by rfburnhertz

That Obama is a liar is an established fact.
A fact many seem willing to over look.

It’s been clear for sometime that Obama lied about the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, he [Obama] has spun and spun hoping the issue would go away. It actually has gone away for the most part, outside of alternative media.

Hopefully some new documents will bring the issue forward.
If bloggers run with this and people hit the talk shows the issue could be forced upon the MSM.

National Right to Life Committee has produced some documents that fully demonstrate Obama has lied (surprise!) about why he voted against the Illinois BAIPA.

The Exact Bill That Chairman Obama Killed

Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants

Also, see this article at Townhall.com:
Obama’s Infanticide Lie

Newly discovered documents from the Illinois state archives prove Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lied about his opposition as an Illinois state senator to legislation requiring health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion.

Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.