Mom4Truth

“This whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I’m flip-flopping, or this or that or the other. People who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”- Barack Obama 7/8/08

Really?

Quite a flip-flopper does he make.

June 08- When addressing the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

-In an interview less than 24 hours later, “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be a part of these negotiations… My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute.”

Oct 07- Obama says, “I won’t wear that pin (referring to the American flag lapel pin) on my chest, instead I’m gonna try and tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

-A few months later, Obama began wearing the American flag lapel pin regularly.

April 08- Obama says, “I would be very interested in pursuing public financing…”

-June 08- A statement posted on his website, “We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election.”

March 08- Obama, “As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. I can no more disown him than I can the black community.”

-May 08- “Michelle and I told Reverend Otis Moss that we were withdrawing as members of Trinity.”

“I will bring this war to and end in 2009.” And on another occasion, “I opposed this war in 2002, that’s why I will bring this war to an end in 2009.”

-July 08- “I’ve always said that the pace of this withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”

Obama has always been a strong supporter of gun restrictions, until the Supreme Court struck down the Washington DC handgun ban.

-June 08- “I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right.”

July 08- “I believe that change comes not from the top, down, but from the bottom, up. And few are closer to the people than our churches, our synagogues, our temples, and our mosques.” Vowing that he would expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives, which supplies tax money to religious groups that provide community service. However, this is the same program that liberals have been complaing about for years. Maybe not an obvious flip-flop, but one to watch for sure.

July 07- Obama promises to meet with leaders of state-sponsors of terror without preconditions.

-After much heat from both parties, Obama retracted his position saying he would have these meetings only if it could “advance the interest of the United States.”

Feb 08- When asked if he would renegotiate the NAFTA agreement he says, “I will make sure we renegotiate the same way Senator Clinton talked about. And I think that on this one Senator Clinton is right. I think we should use the hammer of potential opt-out as leverage…”

-July 08-When asked by Fortune magazine to clarify his position, he said he didn’t plan to unilaterally reopen NAFTA and replied, “I think that sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified…Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.”

So, from one who spouts “Change!”, it looks like, in the words of Sean Hannity, “the only thing he’s going to change is his mind” in order to say whatever will get him elected.

After a conversation with my dad, he sent me his sum-up thoughts and I thought they were hilarious (and brilliant!) My dad is a retired Green Beret, a former instructor at Westpoint, and an international trainer on terrorism tactics. He has been asked to be a political commentator for Fox News and is one of THE smartest guys I know when it comes to politics, so I thought I would let him speak tonight…

I just read an article on an extremely liberal website “Prospect.org”. It was entitled “Sex Education as Liberation” by Courtney E. Martin. It’s a long diatribe about how telling kids to wait is wrong and how people aren’t responding well to “comprehensive” sex-ed, as Planned Parenthood calls it, so she suggests taking the same leftist idealogy of zero moral absoultes and wrapping it in shiny, new paper to try and, I don’t know, perhaps, trick those of us that still have brain cells? Anyway, here is a link to her article if you’re interested in reading it…

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=sex_education_as_liberation

And here is my response to Ms. Martin…

Ms. Martin,

I just read your article “Sex Education as Liberation.” I have to say, I don’t know whether to be irritated and outraged that I stumbled upon it or, perhaps, semi-happy to have been “enlightened” to how outrageous the left has really become in this nation. I guess it’s always better to know the viewpoint of your bloviating adversaries in order to know their talking points. And thank you for identifying yourself as a “liberal folk”. That is certainly something to be proud of.

I thought you might find this study interesting…

http://www.pregnantpause.org/youth/sexed.htm

It seems to contradict the quote that you used about abstinence-only versus “comprehensive” sex-ed. Which, by the way, is the brainchild of Planned Parenthood. Ugh- just typing their name gives me chills. And any person who associates themselves with that organization is disgraceful. Believe me when I tell you, they are not concerned for “women’s health” as you all so love to chant, as much as they are into the business of ethnic cleansing, population control, oh, and murder. How can you believe that children, yes children, should have this mentality of “if it feels good, do it”? You assume that children have the same mental capacity, awareness, self-control, and abilities to discern as adults. That, we, adults are treating them as mindless creatures, lower than we, when we set before them moral absolutes and boundaries. I’m tired of this argument that we need to let children decide what is best for them. There need to be absolutes! Children thrive when given boundaries. I love the quote, “Freedom is not being able to do whatever you want, freedom is being able to what you ought.” This leftist idealogy is forcing children to believe that they are almost expected to engage in, not only pre-marital, but also extremely young intercourse. Many studies have shown that. They feel an unspeakable pressure to have sex because of this comprehensive sex-ed program. Studies also show that these programs are not as effective when compared to abstinence only programs- rates of infection and teen pregnancy are on the rise since the progressive movement hit schools. Rates of teen violence and suicide have subsequently been on the rise as well. I also love how the liberals give them cute little names like “STD” or “STI” or “pro-choice” to water them down. It’s called a venereal disease- not quite as trendy, huh? Do you realize that there was a teenager quoted as saying, “I think herpes sounds sexy.” Yep, that’s what you guys are teaching. You aren’t in the “in-crowd” unless you have some sort of alphabetical equation between your legs. My point is, take away moral absolutes and boundaries, especially for children, and you create “Young Frankenstein“.

There is no room for diversity.There is not room for a lack of self-control. There is reward in taming, saving, and resisting- not only in the sexual realm, but financially as well. That is the problem with this society- instant gratification. And if you actually want to see a turn around in our current society, there have to be set rules, otherwise the boundary lines will continue to be blurred. If promiscuity, experimentation, homosexuality, and group-sex are considered normal and accetable all in the name of “it feels good”, then some will wish to move the line to include beastiality, incest, child pornography (after all, this is what you’re advocating for when you tell children it’s okay to make themselves feel better), and rape. One other question, why is it okay for children to sleep with one another, but liberalism denounces child pornography? Like I said, if we continue on this path, all of these and more will become the norm as we morph into a society much like the one in I Am Legend. My vote? Sexual abstinece as liberation!

Robin Hood Obama, as Bill coined, seemed a little more comfortable tonight. Both parties did for that matter. I am now quasi-convinced that Barak actually believes (somewhat) this economic-utopic illusion someone told him to create. The reason I say “someone told him to create” is because he seems very well informed on what he claims to believe, but very unassured of himself or his ability to sell it. You can tell that he has been advised from other, left-wing, wing nut, no doubt, people that have convinced him that this is what is right for our country.  I think that even though he seemed more comfortable tonight, I don’t believe that it is because he truly understands that which he is trying to sell, more that he’s comfortable with the talking points given to him by campaign staffers that probably have more of the experience that he is so obviously lacking. He gets this deer in a head lamp look when asked a question he hadn’t been coached on. Bill caught him on a few of those in part 2 of this interview.  I think he sincerely just doesn’t know. Proof? How many times did he vote “Present” in senate? 130 times. Sure, most of those were probably political posturing, or sideswiping, so that he wouldn’t ruffle feathers amongst voters or community citizens he was trying to stay “in’ with. For example: “In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.” New York Times. So- he effectively sideswiped it by voting “Present”. But I think in some cases, this ignorant man just doesn’t know. And who can blame him for not understanding it all- afterall, we’re all learning. However, we are not all running for President of the United States. And I don’t think I want this job to be “on-the-job” training for Mr. Obama. Not with my family’s well-being at stake, no thank you. Our economy has shown that the Bush tax cuts have given our government 20% more revenue! Yeah- that’s a “more”. Obama tries to say that is these very tax cuts that have caused our nation to have racked up a 4 trillion dollar debt. Obama could not give a sound reason for the ballooning debt. If he can’t explain the root of it, how can he come up with a way to stop it? First of all, I have to reiterate that he wants to take more of your money to try to control this problem. Truth? A war is quite costly and, as O’reilly stated, spending is out of control. The earmarks and pork-barrel spending have been out of control. This is exactly why a McCain administration would be so valuable for us. He stands strongly against both, putting the money back where it belongs- in our pockets. But, something really interesting, Obama was quoted as saying recently that he would continue the Bush tax cuts if our economy was still bad when he got elected. Hmmm….Bush tax cuts bad, costing us 4 trillion dollars? Bush tax cuts good in a bad economy? Bush tax cuts bad in a good economy? What, Barack? This implies that tax hikes are never good and like I always say, he is quite the flip-flopper. And this proves his inexperience and his inability to have strong convictions on which to stand. By the way guys, all democrats say they are going to cut taxes for the bottom group of people, in Obama’s case, it was 95% of people, and all democrats have proven that to be a lie. The point is- in a community that has raised taxes of any kind, the society shrivels. Obama’s examples and comments proved that he believes in socialism and income redistribution, i.e. the comparison between him and a waitress. If he has more money, why not give more? In O’Reilly’s words- there is no free lunch! Obama again states that in our current economy people are struggling to pay their bills. I’m so tired of him peddaling this crap. Why is it the government’s, yours and my responsibility to bail these people out? Where’s the concept of personal responsibility to not buy things you can’t afford? If someone is really in need, then there are programs for that, but just because someone buys a house they can’t afford or gets one too many credit cards, I do not support our paying for this. Now at this point, the readers of my blog who work, pay their own way, and care to budget their money are getting this, but for those of you who live off of our money, I’m sure I’m going to get an earfull. People that are lazy and don’t want to take care of their own bills will naturally vote for Obama. The tax hikes won’t effect them except to give them more government fluff. You’re welcome! Why would people be so inclined to attain wealth in our capitalist society if they are unable to truly reap the benefits? Putting the government in charge of and administering charity is a very bad plan. He says sewer lines are crumbling- that is not the responsibility of the federal government- it is a responsibility of local taxes and local government, but he can disguise his tax hikes by using seemingly necessary “repairs” and what not. Obama is definitely not a federalist nor a capitalist, rather a socialist who ultimately believes in one-world unity leaving we Americans exposed to the harsh wilderness that is the rest of the world, most of which are 3rd would countries who subscribe to Islam. Even if, as he says, tax hikes were truly reserved for just the wealthy, then we are still in trouble because it is the wealthy who start businesses and the “trickle”, and they will refuse to invest in small business which will murder our economy. See, both socialism and capitalism believe in the trickle effect, however, one, socialism, teaches that we are baffoons and the government should take as much as they can and decide where to place that trickle- most often in the hands of criminals and drug addicts who can’t or won’t work and want the “government”, meaning you and me, to fund them, thus starting the very expensive government trickle. Capitalism teaches, and has taught, successfully, might I add, that an economy where people are encouraged and inspired to earn and spend and invest that the trickle effect of that spending and investing will benefit all. Socialism sounds great at the onslaught, considering that you’re just helping out, but it has maimed every society who has tried it. This is a startling contrast between the liberal left and the conservative right- one believes in utopia and believes the government should control everything, every aspect of our lives, and the other sees reality, that in a free society where people are encouraged through self-responsibility and accountability, society, as a whole, thrives. You will always have the poor amongst you, in Jesus’s words, but it is not the responsibility of the government to mandate that a portion of my hard-earned money goes to them. Worth noting as well is that people would much rather give freely out of their excess than for the government to yank it and force their hand. This way, those that are truly in need, receive, but those that refuse to work and let the government (us) foot the bill- that’s reality and that’s wrong. We do not want a communist government!

So- Bill O’Reilly held his own tonight and did a nice job of calling him out. Unfortunately for Obama, he seems to know what he believes, but is obviously very inexperienced. Round II- O’Reilly!

By the way, guys, worth mentioning. During the interview last week, I was rather annoyed that O’Reilly used this stage as a time to bond with Obama over the fact that he disagreed with our going into Iraq in the first place. Gag.

So- for those of you who think that Bill O’Reilly finally talked Obama into this interview, I’m gonna have to disagree. I don’t think it was Bill O’Reilly‘s “encouragement” whatsoever that made this son of perdition decide to climb on the “no-spin” express at all. Obama has had plenty of time up till this point. This was a calculated decision on his part- for a couple of reasons. One- he feels (semi) secure with his performance last week, and in his cockiness, feels he has less to lose at this point. Second- and what I really believe to be the case, his flame was extinguished last Fri when Palin was announced as McCain’s VP pick on the very coat-tails of the media feeding frenzy that he assumed would be his speech. I love it! And she has delivered this week. I have not heard anything this past week about Obama, but everything about this mysterious young woman from Alaska. Who is she? What does she represent? The mystery of the situation has been eating people alive as they waited with baited breath for her speech last night. So- how could he create the same amount of flurry? How could he get the spotlight back on him? Even the liberal media, attacking her though they may be, is still giving him less attention than this toddler from Chicago can handle. This interview was nothing more than one big tantrum on his behalf to try to sway the media back his way. He assumed that enough highlights would be shown fully right before the McCain speech, in turn taking the attention away from McCain, which McCain successfully pulled off with his announcement of VP last week. Like him or not, Mr. O’Reilly knew what he was doing. He gave him a brief, and let me further emphasize BRIEF stint on tonight’s Factor, claiming the interview would be shown in its entireity next week- AFTER Rasmussen had done Palin/McCain speech polls from this week, and didn’t give him the airtime to ruin the GOP parade. His, I’m so sure, calculated plan, shot him in his left-leaning foot. And you have to love the segment he did air- his common “eh-eh-eh” response to questions regarding the success of the surge. Anybody paying any amount of attention would admit that the surge has been a success- he knows it. He is way to damn prideful to admit it. And you know what they say, “Pride before the fall.” By the way- great orator? A joke! He says more “uh’s” and “eh’s” and stutters more than anyone in public arenas should. First indication of a lie- someone who hesitates before he answers. He has that down. Where are all these “body-language experts” calling him out on that? In my college speech course, we were deducted points if we said “um” or made any of those noises. Calling Mr….- what was his name again? Oh well. Anyway, a good speaker needs to be clear and concise. To sum up the interview- Obama did what he does best- LIED, and he can’t even do that clearly.

So- despite Barak’s attempts to control and manage the situation through large hand movements and talking over Bill O’Reilly, round one, not suprisingly, goes to Bill!