The Disturbing Barack Hussein Obama

The more we see of Barack Obama the more disturbing it is to think this man has a chance to become President of our country.

Last night during the debate he had the gall to suggest the surge was successful not because of the brilliant strategy employed by Gen. Petreaus, not because of the wonderful sacrifice made by our troops, but on the fact that the Democrats won in 2006 and all of sudden the Iraqi’s were scared we were going to leave.

Simple amazing:

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I wouldpoint out that much of that violence has been reduced because there wasan agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.

And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years.

Now that is some revisionist of history. The awakening has started before the election and continued on afterwards. The Sunni’s cared little about who won Congress in our country, they did care that we had stuck around in their country for years and had decided that maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t quit. They decided we were the better choice between al-Qaeda and the coalition seeing as how al-Qaeda were systematically killing their people for no reason other then not submitting to their version of Islam. In addition they understood it was a mistake to have boycotted the electoral process and we could help them get back in.

THAT was the reason for the awakening Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Not because the Democrats came into a slight majority in Congress.

The audacity of the man.

On the Iraq war itself, in 2002 he opposed the war, as we all know. Why? Well because it just one big conspriacy by BushCo:

“What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

His intellect shines through in the fact that he would have pulled the funds to support the troops in 2003, as he told the Chicago Sun-Times:

“I think it enables the Bush Administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people or to the troops who are making sacrifices,”

Nevermind the fact that our enemy would have had a complete country at their disposal from which to base their attacks on us from that point on. Nevermind the fact that the bloodshed inside that country would have brought back memories of Pol Pot. Nevermind that running from that fight would have made the “paper tiger” that Osama talks about look like a childs tale. Instead the whole world would once again have proof that we will run from everything and anything.

That wouldn’t make it more dangerous would it?

In a speech a few years ago he explains why the nanny state is a good thing. Why should people be responsible for their own welfare when Big Daddy is here to help pay for it all:

The idea here is to give everyone one big refund on their government – divvy it up into some tax breaks, hand them out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own unemployment insurance, education, and so
forth.

~~~

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – tough luck. It allows us to say to the women who lose their jobs when they have to care for a sick child – life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child born into poverty – pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Or another version:

It’s a tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford–tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job–life isn’t fair. It let’s us say to the child who was born into poverty–pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”

And this is a bad thing to this man. Imagine, people being responsible for their own life. What a concept!

And the class warfare prevalent in both speeches….priceless. The liberals will eat it up.

The fact of the matter is he supported raising taxes on insurance premiums, on casinos, and even supported new taxes on businesses in addition to retaining the state death tax. On crime he was the only state senator to oppose a bill that stopped early releases for sexual offenders. He voted against a bill that would add penalties for crimes committed as part of a gang in addition to voting against a bill that would have made gang members who have been arrested and are now free on bond or probation to associate with other gang members.

Even more:

He opposes a $2,000 tax credit for retirement and has voted against private gun ownership, mandatory sentencing and the death penalty. During his tenure as a legislator, he abstained from voting about an abortion parental notification bill and on legislation that would keep pornographic video stores and strip clubs from within 1,000 feet of schools and churches. He has also voted against laws requiring students to complete suspensions before being transferred to other school districts. He abstained from legislation requiring adult prosecution for students who fire guns on school grounds.

But whats worse is his experience, or lack of it. Robert J. Caldwell puts it better then I can:

Obama is still the presidential contender with a one-page resume. The Illinois state legislature and half of one term in the U.S. Senate is scant preparation to be president of the United States. In his brief Senate tenure, Obama has no legislative accomplishments, mainly because for most of that short time he’s been running for president.For a candidate aspiring to the toughest, most important job in the world, shouldn’t experience count for something?

Foreign policy and national security are a president’s top responsibilities, especially in time of war. Obama is devoid of experience in either field. His gaffes — threatening to invade Pakistan, offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots — bespeak his amateur standing on matters vital to the safety and security of the American people.

Obama’s inconsistency on Iraq is amply documented. He’s been alternately for and against withholding funding for the troops, for and against setting timelines for withdrawal, and for and against a quick retreat from Iraq.

Whatever one’s views on Iraq strategy and homefront support, these vacillations on a war in progress don’t inspire confidence; in Obama’s judgment, his grasp of Iraq realities and his constancy of purpose. Whatever this is, it isn’t leadership.

All of this betrays Obama’s lack of experience; a glaring deficiency that should be raising profound questions about his qualifications and fitness, at least now, for the presidency.

Then there’s the disturbing disconnect between Obama’s carefully crafted persona as a unifier and a supposed “trans-ideological” agent of change, and his actual record in office.

Obama is running, quite effectively, as both a change agent and an unconventional politician. That fits his campaign motif, a fresh-faced, idealistic outsider running against the Washington establishment voters so distrust. That, in turn, also suggests that Obama is a different kind of Democrat; one perhaps less reflexively partisan and divisive than, say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Certainly that was an implicit message sent in his eloquent Iowa victory speech.

What’s troubling, however, is that Obama’s record doesn’t match his reassuring persona.

The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama’s voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA’s ideological opposite, rates Obama’s voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave no doubt that Obama’s actual votes mark him as a traditionally liberal Democrat, not a moderate.

Where in these votes is the evidence of trans-ideological change that Obama is selling so successfully on the campaign trail? Where in this record is the evidence that Obama is the unifier he claims to be?

On domestic, economic, foreign policy and national security issues, Obama’s actual record is consistently liberal and consistently orthodox in Democratic Party terms. Obama typically talks like a centrist but votes like a liberal.

The man is not only liberal, but scary liberal….almost Marxist.

But yeah, he gives a good speech.

I would suggest you download this 33 page .PDF file written by the folks at Human Events and read about the man. Stop reading the empty platitudes from the MSM and instead read about the real man and his policies. An example is this section on abortion:

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given lifesaving medical attention. When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act…floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”

Just the kind of man I want picking a future Supreme Court justice.