Quick Links To Posts

Use Your Back Button to return to this list.

Obama's Smoking Gun - In His Own Voice!

HOW HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY IS BARACK OBAMA? OR: STEALING AN ELECTION?

HOW QUALIFIED IS SEN. OBAMA?

Rhetoric vs Resume

THE OBAMA STOCK MARKET CRASH?

OBAMA’S TERRIFYING VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION

DO YOU AGREE WITH SENATOR BARACK OBAMA?

IS BARACK OBAMA A MODERATE OR IS HE A HARD LEFT LIBERAL?

Sen. Obama, Rev. Wright, and Trinity UCC

Obama's Smoking Gun - In His Own Voice!

Joe the Plumber barely scratched the surface!

Why is Obama’s association with the out and out Marxist William Ayers significant?

When a Florida TV reporter asked Joe Biden how Obama's economic policies were not Marxist, why did Biden refuse to answer? Why did the Obama campaign then cut off the TV station from any further access? WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE?

Simple: A recording exists of Barack Obama advocating Socialist/Marxist and discussing how it might be accomplished!

WATCH AND LISTEN FOR YOURSELF:

Windows Media Video
http://www.douloscomputer.com/obama/obama.wmv

MP3 Audio
http://www.douloscomputer.com/obama/obama.mp3

PLEASE CONSIDER FORWARDING THIS INFORMATION – ESPECIALLY THOSE IN “SWING’ STATES!

HOW HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY IS BARACK OBAMA? OR: STEALING AN ELECTION?

A candidate for president is only as good as his or her promises. We only have to look back to 1992 when Bill Clinton promised a “middle class tax cut”, only to break his word after we elected him. If a candidate is not honest, his promise is worthless!

If a candidate steals an election, can he be trusted to keep his promises?

So, what do we know about Sen. Obama’s character?

1) He is a product of the Chicago Democratic Machine – one of the most corrupt political organizations in America. It is true that just being a Democrat from Chicago does not make him corrupt – but never taking a stand against such corruption, and in fact seeking support from the corrupt Democratic machine –clearly does speak volumes about his character.

2) Obama broke his word regarding pubic campaign financing. After promising to accept public money (and the spending restrictions that go with it), he broke his word when he realized he could raise a lot more money. Sen. McCain kept his word.

3) His fund raising efforts are VERY TROUBLING.

First, he refuses to disclose all of his contributors. (McCain and the GOP have disclosed every one.) In a day when anyone, anywhere in the world, can log onto a website and contribute money – it is important to know that foreign contributions (all of which are illegal) are not being made. To be clear, American citizens living can contribute to anyone’s campaign – but contributions from foreign citizens living overseas and foreign governments legally forbidden.

There are two very troubling facts regarding Obama’s online fund raising:

a) He refuses to disclose any donors beyond the minimum requirements (so much for openness). Note that campaigns are required to track every donor and every penny donated – so Obama has (or should have) the information.

b) Of the contributions Obama has been required to disclose, 37,000 contributions – totaling 63 million dollars appear to have been made in foreign currency. Are we to believe that over 10% of his contributions come from American citizens living overseas? That simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

c) Many of the donor identities Sen. Obama has disclosed are clearly false, for instance, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375 and “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500. How many false donors are lurking in the unreported contributions?

d) Nearly than half of the 600 million Sen. Obama has raised has come in amounts under the $200.00 disclosure limit. In this day of electronic transactions, it would be extremely easy for foreign citizens, foreign governments or Americans who have already given over the limit to create false identities and channel huge amounts of money to Obama. When it appears that 37 million of the 300 million in disclosed contributions came from overseas, why shouldn’t we believe that more illegal and/or foreign money is hiding there?

e) Furthermore, we know that fund raisers have been held overseas TO RAISE MONEY FOR OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN!

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

After screening out the legal contributions obviously from overseas American Citizens (who by the way, should be listing their US address!), contributions from the UK, Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France are listed. How many more are in the undisclosed contributions?

f) Lest there be any question that the Obama campaign knew all about this and welcomed it, consider these facts:

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

It is crystal clear that Obama knew full well that he was getting illegal overseas contributions.

If there is no issue, why not do what McCain has done and disclose all donors? The answer is simple; He doesn’t dare do so! If he did, he might not only lose the election, he might end up in jail!

For more on this issue see:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/19/141979.html?s=al&promo_code=6D84-1

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

http://newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html

4) Obama and ACORN. This organization is under investigation in 15 states for VOTER FRAUD. Obama has tried very hard to distance himself from this organization – but he has been associated with them for years. In fact THIS YEAR the Obama campaign gave $880,000.00 to ACORN. ACORN has endorsed Obama.

Imagine if it was McCain that had given nearly a MILLION DOLLARS to a group under investigation for voter fraud? Would this not be on the news every night? Wouldn’t the mainstream media be accusing him of corruption? You bet they would, but Obama gets a pass.

5) Barack Obama says he won’t raise taxes on people making less than $250,000/year – yet he has stated at various times that he would – or would strongly consider – removing the $90,000.00 cap on Social Security Taxes. This will result in a 7% tax increase on income above $90,000.00 per year – and result in a 1.3 Trillion Dollar tax increase.

6) Largely as a result of Republican initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s, 44% of citizens pay no tax. Obama’s “middle class tax cut” will, in fact, result in this 44% receiving a check from the government.

7) I have been a member of the lower middle class my entire adult life. I have NEVER received a single tax cut from the Democrats. I have received several from the Republicans. I am still waiting for the tax cut I was promised by Bill Clinton! Remember that when he took office, he suddenly discovered that it just wasn’t possible.

What will happen to our promised middle class tax cut when (if) Obama takes office? Simple – He will discover that he just can’t do it either. In fact, he will discover that he needs to raise taxes on the middle class. So, he will make some excuse and do what he wants.

How do I know this: Simple, there is just not enough income above $250,000.00 to do everything that Obama wants to do. The vast majority of the earned income in this country is earned by average, middle class Americans. Many studies have shown that if every penny of income was taken from the “rich” it would only run the government for a few days.

Mark my words, if elected Sen. Obama will RAISE taxes on the middle class.

Can Sen. Barack Obama be trusted? Consider the above and make up your own mind.

HOW QUALIFIED IS SEN. OBAMA?

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
-- Senator Joe Biden, when asked if Barack Obama is ready to be President
"I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House--and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
-- Hillary Clinton, about Obama's leadership

When someone runs for president, they are not just competing in a national popularity contest, they are applying to run the largest and most important organization in the world. The job requires a completely different set of skills than sitting in a legislative body. The President of the United States is the Chief Executive. It is therefore important to ask: What kind of executive experience and/or leadership experience does Sen. Barack Obama have?

Barack Obama Executive Experience
Business executive experience – NONE
Military executive experience – NONE
Governmental executive experience - NONE
Non-profit executive experience – 3.75 years (Maximum employees = 13!!!!!)
Total executive experience - 3.75 years

Using the same formula:

John McCain Executive Experience – 21 years
Sarah Palin Executive Experience – 8 years

That’s right, conservatively (not counting her small business experience) Sarah Palin has DOUBLE the executive experience of Barack Obama!

What about previous presidents?

Dwight D Eisenhower ------ 37 years
George H. W. Bush ------ 26 years
Ronald Reagan ------ 18 years
Herbert Hoover ------ 16 years
Warren G. Harding ------ 14 years
Franklin D. Roosevelt ------ 12 years
Richard Nixon ------ 11.5 years
George W Bush ------ 11 years
Jimmy Carter ------ 11 years
Calvin Coolage ------ 10 years
Woodrow Wilson ------ 10 years
Bill Clinton ------ 9 years
William Howard Taft ------ 8 years
Lyndon B. Johnson ------ 7 years
Harry Truman ------ 7 years (2 years WW1 combat leadership)
Gerald Ford ------ 6 years (4 years WW2 combat leadership)
John F. Kennedy ------ 4 years (WW2 combat leadership)

Although Obama has nearly as many years as JFK, one must consider the QUALITY of the experience. Does leading a community organization with 13 employees really compare with serving 4 years in the US Navy – including some very well known combat leadership! Of course not!

Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the men listed above held executive positions with great responsibility in the military or government prior to running for president. Obama has supervised 13 people in a not for profit organization.

If elected, Sen. Obama will clearly be the least qualified person elected in the last 100 years!

THE OBAMA STOCK MARKET CRASH?

As I write the the stock market has fallen to new lows - this in spite of the huge rescue plan passed by congress and signed by the president. Why is it that the market continues to fall?

Another factor changed about the same time that the measure passed: Barak Obama jumped ahead in the polls.

Ask yourself this question: If Obama is going to be so good for the economy, why is the market in free fall now that he is winning? Could it be that the huge drop in the market is caused by fear that he will be our next president? Shouldn't his lead in the polls result in the market stabilizing?

As I demonstrated in the post "IS BARACK OBAMA A MODERATE OR IS HE A HARD LEFT LIBERAL?" Obama is so far left as to be nearly, if not actually, Socialist in his views. Doesn't it make sense that the prospect of his election would drive down the market?

Think about it!

OBAMA’S TERRIFYING VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION

Early this year, as the Washington DC Gun Case was progressing towards the Supreme Court, Sen. Obama was asked about his view of the 2nd Amendment and the DC Case. His response spoke volumes: “I believe the 2nd Amendment protects a individual right to keep and bar arms. I also believe that Washington DC’s law is reasonable and should be upheld.” Doesn’t that sound reasonable, fair and middle of the road? Only if you don’t know the facts.

Washington DC’s law was the most restrictive law in the nation, BANNING ALL FUNCTIONAL FIREARMS. As Justice Kennedy said during oral arguments, “What is reasonable about a total ban?” Indeed, many rights come with restrictions (i.e. free speech does not allow one to liable or yell fire in a crowded theater), but what constitutionally protected right can be completely ignored by the government? At least so far, none.

So how far off the beam is Obama’s view? After all, he was a constitutional law professor, right?

Out of nine Justices on the court (four conservative, four liberals, one moderate) exactly NONE even came close to Obama’s frightening view. The four liberal Justices embraced the “collective right view” which states that the right to bear arms can only be exercised in the context of militia service – not individually. The majority (the four conservatives, joined by Justice Kennedy) rejected this view, finding that the amendment protects a personal, individual right.

One can hold either of the preceding views without threat to any other rights protected by the constitution. What is frightening about Obama’s view is that the reverse is true: IF THE 2ND AMENDMENT CAN BE TOTALLY IGNORED, THEN OTHER RIGHTS WE ALL HOLD DEAR CAN BE AS WELL.

For instance:

If a community has a severe drug problem, why can’t they allow their police to search homes without taking time to get a warrant?

If a religious group is opposed to the government, why can’t it be banned?

If a newspaper is publishing information that the government believes is harming the country’s war efforts, why can’t it be censored or shut down?

IF ONE APPLIES THE SAME PRINCIPLES OBAMA APPLIED TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT, ALL OF THE ABOVE – AND MORE - IS POSSIBLE.

But surely we have nothing to worry about – Barack Obama would never threaten the civil rights of anyone. Sadly, this is not the case. He is already at it.

In an action that is straight out of the third world, OBAMA IS ALREADY THREATENING THE LICENSES OF STATIONS THAT AIR NRA ADS HE DOES NOT LIKE. This is absolutely unheard of – a candidate whose administration will have the power to revoke broadcast licenses is threatening to do just that if they dare to accept ads from a group opposed to him.

Of course Obama has every right to respond to the NRA ads, to accuse them of being deceptive, and generally make their case. He certainly has lots of money to do so. In the last election, the Swift Boat ads were extremely controversial and may have very well been inaccurate – but John Kerry NEVER threatened to pull licenses if elected. Why? Because John Kerry respects the 1st Amendment – Obama doesn’t.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_Wants_NRA_Ads_Banne/2008/09/27/135118.html

If Obama is willing to abuse his power to control the media BEFORE he is elected – what will he do AFTER he is elected? Every media outlet (even cable and satellite channels) require FCC licenses (or access to them) to operate. If he wants to, he can shut down those he disagrees with and force them to go to court to get back on the air. At a minimum, he will reinstate the so-called “fairness doctrine” – which will effectively shutdown talk radio, a goal the left has had for years.

Even more frightening is that as president, Obama will be able to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who agree with his views. Would you like new Justices who think following the Bill of Rights is optional?

For details – including a copy of the letter Obama sent to stations, and documentation that the ads are accurate, follow these links:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/09/25/obama-silencing-voice-of-gun-owners/

DO YOU AGREE WITH SENATOR BARACK OBAMA?

The link below will take you to a site where you will be asked questions based on Obama’s actual votes. Yes, the site has an agenda, but every one of the questions is based on a specific vote – not upon what he is saying now that he is running for president. So just read the questions carefully to eliminate any bias. At the end of the test, you will get a percentage score of how much you really agree with Obama.

http://www.barackobamatest.com/?fuseaction=home.options