i support obama…..i also understand where you’re comming from feeling worried about the whole “right to bear arms” situation…..but really, IS that the most important thing right now? yes, it’s our right as americans, and some would say that gun control policies would only lead to the government then slashing away at other rights, but i don’t believe that would happen….when politicians support gun control, it’s because they believe it’s a way to make our country a safer place….their intentions aren’t those of oppression. and as i stated before, we have much bigger problems facing this country…not voting for someone who otherwise has very good policies, just because of their stance on one issue is illogical.

What this person does not seem to understand is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.  That means that politicians are not allowed to come along and decide that they “can make our nation a safer place” by getting rid of this right.  Could the same politician decide that taking away the freedom of speech (1st amendment) could make our country safer, and therefore get rid of it?  I think not, there would be wide spread outrage over such a move.  However, much of the country is satisfied with taking away the 2nd amendment on a whim.

I am amazed that someone would ever think that BO’s policies are good other than this.  I for one, find very little (if anything) that I can agree with BO on.  His policies for the future of this country will certainly bring change, but that change will not be good.  His idea is to turn as much over to government as humanly possible, after all the government knows better what is good for you than you do.  I for one don’t need the government taking over my health care, or taking more money from my paycheck to pay for all the entitlement programs that are on the democratic agenda.  We have far too many people wanting handouts rather than a hand up in this society, and BO and his policies will only exasperate the situation.

This person obviously has only swallowed the BO and democrat kool-aid.  Never has taking away guns made a society safer.  We can take the handgun ban in Washington D.C. as one example.  Only one time since the institution of the ban has the murder rate been lower than when it was instituted.  Seems to me that makes the plan a failure, as it was put in place to help cut the murder rate in the city.  And yet, proponents of the ban insist that it remain.  So, there is a whole city whose citizens cannot purchase a handgun to protect themselves–the whole point of the 2nd amendment!

Liberals will so easily allow the government to take away my rights, but they want to make sure that those detainees in Guantanamo Bay have their rights.   What seems to be the problem here?  I am a US citizen, and as such I have a right to keep and bear arms…I don’t think BO has the right to decide for me whether that is safe or not.  I will most definitely vote against candidates that campaign on taking away constitutional rights.  If you vote for them, then you had better start practicing keeping your mouth shut…your right to free speech just might be next!

Let’s take Obama for example. He bragged about how he was a Christian, and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Then the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright came to light. Turns out that Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s preacher for about 20 years, is incredibly racist. Obama is out claiming that he is the one who can unite not only the Democratic Party, but the whole country. And yet, he sat at the feet of a racist preacher for 20 years, listening to him spew his black power speech. Obama, in the meantime, claims that he didn’t know that Wright (his religious mentor earlier in the campaign) held these extremist beliefs.

Wright was forced, by the media publicity, to resign his post at the church. In steps a young new preacher, who Obama speaks highly of. In fact, he stated that he was only staying there because he liked the new, energetic preacher. The question then becomes, is he any better than Wright? And the answer is obviously a resounding, “No!” In his “Easter” sermon, almost immediately following Wright’s resignation, Otis Moss III preached a sermon entitled, “How to Handle a Public Lynching.” In the “sermon” (and I use that term very lightly) Moss compared the attacks on Wright to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That shows that either he has no real concept of the sacrifice of Christ, or else that he has no respect for it, or real religion in general.

As if all of this was not enough, just recently another religious mentor and friend of Barak Obama preached a “sermon” at Trinity United Church of Christ in which he ridiculed Hillary Clinton by name. Michael Pfleger, Roman Catholic priest, blasted Clinton as being racist, and thinking herself entitled to have the Democratic nomination. Here is a quote, as taken from Fox News:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’” he said.

“And then out of nowhere came, hey, I’m Barack Obama. And she said, ‘Oh ****, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.’” Those remarks were mockingly performed in a falsetto, and drew a standing ovation.

This is a man that is known as an activist in the Chicago area. Being an activist is not necessarily a bad thing, but this man has fraternized with others that are obviously divisive, rather than uniting. Consider this from CBS News:

Pfleger, known locally as a community activist and organizer, was arrested in June 2007 with the Rev. Jesse Jackson during a protest outside of a south suburban Chicago gun shop. The criminal trespass charges were later dropped.

He also has hosted Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, at St. Sabina and has called him “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”

There is something wrong with a man who calls Louis Farrakhan, a “gift from God”! How can we ever believe that this type of man could be a good influence on Obama?

It seems like Obama has now had his 3 strikes. He can continue to act as if he is oblivious to the beliefs and teachings of all of these men, but it is just not believable. Obama has associated with these men for years, and has most certainly accepted the “Christianity” that they are proclaiming. Again, I use that word very loosely, as the doctrine they teach has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a message of divisiveness, and hatred. That is exactly the kind of presidency that we will get out of Obama!

There cannot be two more drastic positions for how to deal with the Iraq War than the two expressed by McCain and Obama. McCain is convinced that we can actually win the war, and Obama is convinced that there isn’t anything in the world that we can do to win the war. He used to say that he, if elected, would begin pulling the troops out immediately. Of course, he was extremely naive when he was saying that, and has changed his position to say that he would start working toward getting the troops home. The bottom line is that he is ready to give up on Iraq, and pull out as soon as possible, regardless of what happens in the region when he pulls out.

McCain, on the other hand, actually believes that the military can win the war, given the proper resources. He will work more diligently to make sure that the troops have all that they need to be able to finish the objectives laid out for them.

We can argue all day about whether we should be in Iraq or not. That is a debate that has been going on since we went into Iraq in the first place. But, what we really need to realize is that we are there now…the time for that debate is over. How can we get out victoriously? It certainly is not going to be accomplished by pulling out before the work is done.

So, why won’t Barak visit Iraq, especially with McCain? Because he would see that there is progress being made, and that McCain is right about what needs to be done in Iraq. Obama has only been in Iraq one time, and that was 2 years ago, before the surge (which has been successful). What exactly might he be afraid of finding out? He might be afraid of finding out that McCain really can teach him a thing or two when it comes to military conflicts!

I have already made it clear in previous posts that I am not thrilled about McCain as a president, but I think when it comes to national security, and specifically the war in Iraq, he will do a much better job than Obama. Obama wants to sit down and talk with the dictators of the world “without preconditions”, but he will first cut the military down to an incredible low (something like when Bill Clinton was president). He wants to throw out the name of Ronald Reagan, like his policy is similar to Reagan’s, when in fact it could not be more different. Obama is not ready to deal with the issues that are looming on the horizon in the area of national security. He is far too inexperienced to be able to be successful in these areas!

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,”

Can you imagine if a republican had said such a thing? He’d be roasted alive! Think that is overstepping the reaction? Just remember Mike Huckabee’s ill conceived joke when speaking before the NRA:

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Huckabee has been blasted in the media, and in the left wing blogs for his comments. I admit that they weren’t well thought out, and not really all that funny (for the joke it was meant to be). But the point is that he was not allowed to get by with his statement by anyone. Of course, CNN tried to tie the comments to John McCain by making sure to point out that Huckabee is supporting McCain. He must agree with every word uttered by those that support him. Funny how that doesn’t apply when your preacher is a racist.

I don’t think Hillary was really calling for the assassination of Barak Obama, but maybe she is secretly hoping some nut job out there will figure out that if he is not in the race, she then has a chance to win. On the other hand, those that get on the wrong side of the Clintons do seem to have a relatively short life span. If something were to happen to Obama before the election, maybe they should investigate Hillary… Just to be clear, I wish no harm for either Obama or Hillary. I’m just taking a look at the comments made by Clinton.

I found it interesting that when Huckabee made his comments, he apologized to Obama. He meant no real disrespect, and was only trying to make a joke. Hillary, on the other hand apologized to the Kennedys I guess she didn’t want to anger the only political family in the democratic party with more clout than her own. Here’s what she had to say:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,”

Of course, this is being spun in the media (for the most part) as only being a statement about how long the campaign should go on. But the duplicity with how it has been handled is obvious. Only could a democrat get by with such a statement. Why can’t we just chalk stupid statements up to just that, no matter who makes them. This is far different than the planned statements found in speeches, and should be considered differently. However, Clinton might want to apologize to Obama, rather than the Kennedys, after all she was talking about him!

One primary is in the state of Kentucky today.  That is another state that Obama cannot possibly win.  I’m sure it is just because they are all a bunch of gun-toting, religious, racist fanatics.  That was what happened in West Virginia, or so we were told.

Obama’s inability to win in Kentucky throws up many red flags, which will obviously be completely ignored by his supporters. He is the “chosen one” and nothing that comes up can possibly be a sign of a bump in his campaign. But, the states of West Virginia and Kentucky (and Obama’s ignoring of these states and the people within them) highlight the fact that Obama is not the “unifier” that he claims to be. Obama cannot win in these two states, and he will lose a lot of votes in other moderate states. The truth is that Obama, no matter how much he tries to paint himself as “mainstream”, is ridiculously liberal, and really only appeals to the extreme left base (and those who refuse to actually try to understand his “plan for America). There are many reasons that Obama cannot win in these states, none of which include “racism.” I don’t deny there are racists in West Virginia and Kentucky, but there are also racists in every other state. That doesn’t excuse the racism, but it certainly takes excuse out of his basket. It’s amazing that we didn’t know that there were proportionately more racists in West Virginia and Kentucky until Obama ran for president! It’s just an excuse…don’t buy into it! I did find it interesting that former clan member, Robert Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week. Despite the obvious “mandate of the people” of West Virginia in voting for Clinton, two of the top 3 super delegates in West Virginia have cast their support to Obama. We are still waiting to see what the governor will do.

Obama recently has been coming off as a whiner as well. That will hurt him quite a bit in states like Kentucky, where people are struggling to make ends meet. They really don’t want to hear about how hard his life is, and how unfairly he is being treated. He whined about the president rebuking his proposed foreign policy. He whined because republicans used the words of his wife against him. If anyone speaks out against him or his policy, he whines. I’m just wondering…how much whining are we going to hear from him when the nations around the world refuse to bow down to him? I don’t know how this can possibly make him look better to his supporters!

Just a note to Barak Obama: If you send your wife out to campaign for you, she, and the things she says, cannot be “off limits.” Yes, Michelle will be an issue in the campaign. If she goes out on the campaign trail and says something stupid, republicans are allowed to point it out, and use it against you, as she is speaking for you! By the way, the same rule goes for the Clinton campaign. They have complained about unfair treatment of Chelsea, and the things she has said. If you send her out to campaign, she is fair game. Quit whining.

The democratic nominee may be chosen today, but I hope not. If Obama doesn’t get his 2025 delegates, he needs to hold off on declaring victory. I’d love for this to go all the way to convention. Let them keep on fighting amongst themselves!

]]> http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/can-barak-obama-get-it-done-today/feed/ 1 http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/why-barak-obama-cant-win-in-west-virginia/ http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/why-barak-obama-cant-win-in-west-virginia/#comments Mon, 12 May 2008 14:43:46 +0000 Kris http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/?p=23 For weeks, all I have been hearing from the left is that it is time for Hillary to get out of the race. Even the liberals have been accusing her of tearing the party apart. After all, it is time for the party to unite, and face off against the mean, nasty Republicans.

Hold the phone. Not so fast. Maybe we should let her wait until after the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. Why? Because Obama cannot possibly win those states. Even if Hillary bows out, she will still win at least those two states in a landslide.

I have been listening and reading about this with great interest today, since West Virginia is my home state. I have been amazed at the negative press that we have received in the last few days. Those in the Obama camp have already given up on this state, conceding it to Hillary. I have been reading some blogs, like First Door on the Left, which seem to suggest that because West Virginia is predominantly white, and predominantly “uneducated” (that is, only about 14% of West Virginians 25+ hold a Bachelor’s Degree) they will vote for HIllary in the primary, and then McCain in the general election. Many of the news sources have tried to make it out like West Virginia will not vote for Obama because we are just racist…we aren’t ready for a black president.

What many of these authors refuse to consider is that West Virgina used to be a “yellow dog democrat” state. That means (for the uninformed) that if the democrats put a an ol’ yellow dog on the ticket, it would get elected over a republican candidate. They couldn’t lose. In fact, the state has been run by democrats for what seems like forever! And then along came Al Gore. Gore made gun control a major part of his presidential platform. It was the death knell to the Gore campaign in West Virginia. There are some things that will not be accepted here in WV, and one is the threat of taking away (or limiting) gun rights.

Enter Barak Obama. Remember just a few weeks ago when Barak told us that only frustrated people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Some people said that this was elitist. I’m really not concerned about whether it is elitist or not. I am more concerned about the political belief system that would inspire him to say such a thing! He relegates the issues of the 2nd Amendment, Religion and Border Control to being economically frustrated. Does that not indicate that if we are all financially content we won’t want guns or religion any more, and we won’t care about immigration? This is a reflection of his deeply held socialist beliefs. That is why he wants socialized (universal) health care. That is why he wants to raise taxes to redistribute the wealth among those who have not earned it. That is why he wants more governmental control over most aspects of our lives, including restriction of gun ownership.

I am tired of hearing that those of us who oppose Obama are really just not smart enough to understand his brilliance. Or that we are racist. Or that we are afraid he might be a Muslim. Sorry folks, none of the above! Barak Obama is being rejected in the Mountain State because he does not have the same beliefs and values of the people of the state. Just as a side note, Hillary probably doesn’t either. That is why she will lose this state to McCain as well. There is a reason that we elected a Republican president, and a Democrat Governor in the last election! West Virginians actually vote on their own values, not on what the various parties tell them to vote on. So, don’t try to make it sound like we are racist, uneducated, gun toting, church attending, bumpkins.

Lets get back to our original premise: even the liberals are trying to keep Hillary in the race now. Why? Because it would be embarrassing for Barak to lose these two races so big without her in the race. Is it less embarrassing for the candidate that everyone is presuming to be the Democrat nominee to lose by 40 points to someone IN the race? I think it reflects the fact that Obama cannot win. If he can “unite the nation” as he claims, then why can’t he even get close in these predominantly rural states? He cannot relate with the values, economy or environment of states like West Virginia and Kentucky. Obviously Hillary would be a stronger candidate in the general election for the Democrats. She has not been completely blown out in any state, and would be very close to being in the lead if she could get Florida and Michigan thrown in.

For once, I’m with the liberals. Stay in the race Hillary. Stay in through the WV and KY primaries. Stay in through May 20th. Stay in until every last Super Delegate votes. Stay in until the end. Carry it all the way to convention. I’m really enjoying seeing the Democratic Party continuing to destroy itself. We have been told just how bad a job Bush has been doing. That should make it an easy win for the Democrats. But, it just isn’t going to happen! They are going to continue fighting among themselves until even their own constituents are going to get sick of them. I’m loving it!

In this story from Fox News, the Obama camp claimed that Clinton picked up about 7 points from the “Limbaugh effect.” Of course, Obama is trying desperately to spin that fact in his favor. He has tried to make it appear that he has a much better chance of beating McCain in the general election because his numbers are not inflated by these “crossover” votes. That may very well be the case, but in fact, the “Limbaugh Effect” is not good for either of the Democratic candidates. Clinton’s win in Indiana will certainly keep her in the race a while longer, making Obama spend his time, money and energy battling her, instead of being able to turn his attention to the general election and John McCain. I have noticed that “supporters” for Obama have already turned against McCain, trying to do the dirty work for Obama before he even gets into the general election.

It has been very humorous watching Limbaugh’s influence on the democratic primaries. For the most part, the candidates, and the general media have denied that “Operation Chaos” has had any real impact at all. They claim that there really aren’t Republicans crossing the party line to vote for Clinton just to keep the primaries going. However, we have seen poll workers from the democrats’ side of the aisle trying to intimidate voters from changing their registration and voting for a democrat in the primary. If the movement isn’t really having an impact, then why try to stop it from happening. Finally, today, we see Obama acknowledge the “Limbaugh Effect.” That gives more credence to the “operation” than anything else.

I don’t think that “Operation Chaos” will ever cause Hillary to be the nominee. However, I think it has certainly accomplished Limbaugh’s stated purpose–to extend the primary season for the democrats. Limbaugh has put forth the proposition that liberals were responsible for voting in the early Republican Primaries for the purpose of swinging the vote to a more liberal John McCain. I think he is probably right in that supposition. More on that in posts to come. It has been, however, fun to see the turmoil that the democratic party has been thrown into. Here is Rush’s assessment on the situation, from the Fox News article:

“I see the Obama campaign is saying Operation Chaos accounted for a 7-point bump for Hillary in Indiana. I think they are just jealous that I out-organized them,” Limbaugh told FOX News Tuesday night. “I am extremely proud of Operation Chaos volunteers. I never doubted they would triumph and it is a delight to see.”

I know that Hillary can’t acknowledge all of this, but I’m sure in the privacy of her own home, she silently thanks Limbaugh for all he has done to promote her run for the presidency. I wonder if she sees the handwriting on the wall yet?

Senator McCain is falling hook-line-and-sinker into the trap that the Democrats have set. They want any criticism of Senator Obama to be perceived as racist, even when no such thing exists. It is a shame that the Republican candidate for President is apparently going to be unwilling to place any campaign ads that are negative of Senator Obama. Does he really think Senator Obama is going to show him the same courtesy?

To their credit, the North Carolina Republicans have refused to pull the ad, citing that the ad reflects North Carolina issues, not national issues. Senator McCain is, in my opinion, overstepping his bounds in asking them to pull the ad. It has nothing to do with him or his campaign. In addition, Rush Limbaugh made a good point on his program yesterday: If Senator McCain is allowed to portray himself as a “maverick” and do things his own way, why is it then wrong for members of his party to do the same thing? He wants to be able to do things any way he likes, but expects others in his party to fall “in line” with what he wants.

Senator McCain has been quick the last few days to protect the Democrats while degrading members of his own party. That’s more than “crossing the aisle.” That’s being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Such is what we conservatives will have to deal with, having a liberal running on the Republican ticket. If he does not wake up soon, though, we’re going to have someone much more liberal living in the White House. He needs to quit playing into the Democrats hands, and be willing to criticize Senator Obama. There is much to criticize.

I hope this election cycle will help teach Republicans to start grooming a true conservative for a Presidential run. Senator McCain is not the answer.

After winning Pennsylvania, Clinton came out with both barrels blazing. She has done everything but declare herself the winner. She won Pennsylvania, and so “the tide has turned.” She has started attacking Obama for not being able to “close the deal” in states like Pennsylvania. She obviously thinks that will look good to the fat cats who will ultimately make the decision for who the Democratic nominee will be. I think the question will really come down to how much those same fat cats owe Bill Clinton…if there is enough political capital in the coffers, then she will get the nod.

Personally, I think it is hilarious that such a big deal is being made of the fact that she has won Pennsylvania, and now she is on the upswing. It appears to me that she is still the underdog, and is still quite a bit behind Obama in the delegate race. At last count, Hillary has 1575 delegates and Obama has 1705. I think Obama is still in the lead, if I remember my basic mathematics principles correctly. He is still leading in states won, delegates won, and in the popular vote. Yes, I think this is going to be interesting coming down to September and the Democratic Convention!

Another thing that Clinton has completely ignored is the mass changing of registrations from Republican to Democrat. I know she, as well as the general media outlets, want to believe that this is because the Republicans are fed up with their leadership and have jumped ship to the other party. The local news in my area reported on it in just that way (and even had a few interviews with folks who made the claim, with sly grins on their faces). I’m sure this major shift had absolutely nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” which encouraged registered Republicans to make the change. I heard on Mike Church this morning that he was encouraging the same thing, and referred to the movement as the “Talk Radio Militia.” According to an article on MSNBC (it pains me to even site them, but surely their pure statistics are accurate) since the first of the year, there have been 101,499 new applicants for Democratic registration, and 132,688 have switched to the Democratic party. Now, I am not naive enough to believe ALL of those are the result of the movement encouraged by talk radio. But, I think it is ridiculously naive for the Democrats to think that the movement is all legitimate movement of discontent (maybe bitter?) Republicans. I guess maybe we will find out in November!

However, in the last few weeks, he has finally started coming under fire from even the media. The “Teflon” has apparently worn off. He has desperately tried to brush off the criticisms, but I believe many people are finally starting to see through the facade that he built.

Senator Obama is, without question, a great orator. He sounds fantastic when he delivers a speech. But what has he really said in those speeches? I haven’t personally heard much of a plan for America, plans for the economy, plans for Iraq. The only constant in his speeches is “change.” He’s going to “change” Washington, “change” America, and “change” politics. He delivers this speech to great fanfare, but never seems to explain what he means by “change.”

He has tried to paint himself as a different kind of politician, one who is above the fray of everyday “down and dirty” politics. But in recent weeks as he has come under fire for his dubious associations, his reaction has been that of the quintessential politician. He wants to brush off his relationships with less-than-stellar companions as “unimportant” to the American people, and, in my opinion, whine about actually being asked a serious question in a debate. Is someone who whines when confronted with a serious question actually qualified to “answer that phone at 3 a.m.”?

First, does it not seem arrogant to say in a speech following the last debate that it ‘took 45 minutes to get to anything that Americans are concerned about’, when the first 45 minutes concerned questions about his relationships with a racist pastor and a domestic terrorist? He even went so far as to say that he thought Americans were “smarter” than to think that his relationships with those folks would affect his own thinking, the inference apparently being that if you did think it might affect him, then you weren’t “smart”. I personally am very concerned that the man who would be President has a “friendly” relationship with a man who admittedly wishes he had done more in his domestic terrorism days.

And then there was the infamous gaffe about discontented Americans clinging to their guns and religion. He has tried to explain that away, but this also seems to be sticking.

My hope is that the last few weeks will show people that Senator Obama is fully unprepared to be President, that there is nothing on his resume that qualifies him, and that he is no different than any other politician. The fact that he sounds better doesn’t necessarily mean he has anything of substance to say.