October 28, 2008

Kaptur Calls Out Herself, Demanding a ‘Second Bill of Rights’ at Obama Rally

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:07 pm

Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) wasn’t on my callout list for this week.

She has shown that she didn’t have to be. She outed herself two weeks ago (HT to Rush Limbaugh and the incomparable Mark Steyn at the Corner), and, by inference, her party’s standard-bearer, as hardened soc-, soc-, soc-, (yeah, we can still say the word) socialists:

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.

I see no record of Obama objecting.

The Blade, of course is down with the struggle, having endorsed Ms. Kaptur for another congressional term last weekend.

Toledo’s August unemployment rate was 8.7% (September’s report comes out tomorrow), putting it 339th out of 369 cities the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics listed. That rate is the highest in Ohio by far; the next worst are Youngstown and Lima (tied for Number 318, 7.8%).

Combine Kaptur’s obsession over “guarantees” with the Blade’s willingness to endorse those who have been part of the problem for years, and you understand why things are as bad as they are in the Glass City. If you’re going to blame Bush, you’re going to have to explain why Cincinnati (6.3%) and Columbus (6.2%) are coming in just above the national average of 6.1%.

Obama wants to take what Kaptur wants nationwide. We’ll end up with a country that looks more like Toledo in its current condition, and less like Cincinnati — or for that matter, less like the well over a dozen red states with below-average unemployment.

No thanks.

RIP, Dean Barnett

Filed under: General — Tom @ 12:38 pm

Here is Bill Kristol’s tribute.

SoxBlog forever.

HOPE ON Callout Campaign: Steve Driehaus is NOT Prolife

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:23 am

HOPEONlogoNOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated positions of certain Democratic candidates for political office in Ohio and Barack Obama, the presidential candidate these Democrats have nonetheless endorsed.

The lucky person receiving the first not-so-coveted callout is First District Congressional candidate Steve Driehaus.

____________________________________________________

Here’s how Steve Driehaus characterized himself in an item carried at Cincinnati TV station WLWT’s web site:

DriehausHeadline1008

DriehausStatement1008

The person who answered the phone at Driehaus’s campaign office yesterday informed me that Mr. Driehaus has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Steve Driehaus cannot claim to be pro-life, or for that matter “not wildly liberal” (though I will not cover that here), while endorsing Obama.

As to life issues, oh yeah, Driehaus answered the Cincinnati Right to Life PAC’s questionnaire quite satisfactorily. Though incumbent Steve Chabot received CRTL’s endorsement, Driehaus’s answers were pretty close to Chabot’s.

That’s nice, but Driehaus’s support of Barack Hussein Obama makes all that irrelevant.

Driehaus’s perfunctory prolife positions will more than likely mean nothing in a possible Obama administration. If he thought it through, Dreihaus would surely know that (if he hasn’t, that’s just another argument against his candidacy).

Here is what Barack Obama has either promised he will do if he becomes president, or can be relied on to do based on his past life-hostile record (Sources – Princeton Professor Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essays, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and “Obama and Infanticide,” excerpting with some paraphrasing from what was assembled in this brilliant post at Pro Ecclesia, who also excerpted from George):

  • Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions, and which has been credited with saving over a million lives.
  • Obama has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act“, which would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons”, and would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry.
  • Obama, unlike even many allegedly “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
  • Obama has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not have to endure.
  • Obama has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand.
  • Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.
  • Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about his vote until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done. In fact, Sen. Obama continues to lie about his inhuman voting record in regard to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even stooping so low as to run a disgusting television ad attacking the disabled survivor of a botched abortion.

Obama’s positions on embryonic and adult stem cell research are, if it can be imagined, even MORE outlandish (sources again are George and Pro Ecclesia):

  • He has co-sponsored a bill that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. Despite being falsely positioned as an anti-cloning bill, what it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
  • Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos (often referred to as “adult stem cell research”). But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

Driehaus cannot excuse himself by trying to claim that Obama won’t have the power to make things worse. There is little doubt that the current Congress would pass the aforementioned Freedom of Choice Act if a Democrat were in the White House. Barring a sea change in party representation in the House, Driehaus couldn’t stop it.

This mountain of evidence shows that Steve Driehaus’s claim to be prolife and his support of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. In fact, if Team Driehaus tries to claim that the statement I heard came from someone without the authority to say it, Steve Driehaus’s claim to be prolife and his failure to speak out forcefully against the life-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. It is not arguable.

Perhaps this explains why there’s not a single word on the Issues page at Driehaus’s web site about his allegedly prolife positions. There’s some guidance from a book the Democratic candidate may be aware of suggesting that while this handling may be politically opportunistic, it is indefensible. Note well that Steve Chabot isn’t hiding his life-related light under a lampshade.

While I’m in the neighborhood, the apparent silence of Democrats for Life, which has endorsed Driehaus, on the horrors Obama plans to visit on the most helpless is truly disgraceful.

Driehaus can remedy the situation by repudiating Obama’s candidacy, as well as any and all financial and other support he might have received from him. Absent that, he has proven himself untrustworthy as a defender of life, and unworthy of serious consideration as a candidate.

HOPE ON Project, Day 9: Let’s Never Find Out Part 9 — ‘Not This Time’

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:17 am

HOPEONlogo.jpgmartin-luther-king-faceNote: This is the ninth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many other candidates are not).

Previous PostsPart 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (“Energy”); Part 3 (“Punished”); Part 4 (“Number One”); Part 5 (“Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (“Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (“Middle Class”).

The daily videos involved are from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring (donation link is here).

This post is part of the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now).

Today’s SOB Alliance author is Cornell McCleary of American Experience-US.

______________________________________________

Video (direct YouTube link):

Transcript:

MAN: Senator Obama, as a Black American, I long for the day that we will see a Black President in the White House. That day will truly be a sign of real change.

VIDEO: Photo of Martin Luther King, Jr.

MAN: But a wise man once said that we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

So while that day will be a source of pride, my vote will not be based on race. I will heed that wise man. So Senator, this is not that time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Commentary by Cornell McCleary of American-Experience US (excerpts):

(The) Video ….. will tick off a lot of black people.

….. From the first moments of the Revolutionary War and every struggle since, blacks have been a part of the American Experience but has not, as a people, considered themselves truly Americans or America their new Homeland until now, embracing the persona of U. S. Senator Barack Obama.

….. For all intents and purposes, because we have a strong federal government, Adam and Hamilton’s Federalist government did in fact become the American government of the future and, is what it is today.

The nation’s Founding Fathers first embarked upon creating a nation, any kind of nation free or otherwise. The issue of slavery was a matter to be resolved at another time. Because Jefferson and his Democrat-Republican Party dominated early American politics and strongly embraced the concepts of a weak federal government and states rights, the issue of slavery and the emancipation of blacks would not become a matter for the American Experience for a time to come.

….. No matter what happens November 4th, America is no going to be the same. These moments should have been and could have been special but they are not because the wrong man with the wrong past is center stage. He should have been the son of a former slave. He should have been an American Experience but what he is, what he claims to be, is a “Citizen of the world.”

+++++++++++++++++++++

Additional BizzyBlog Commentary:

Obama has, of course, frequently played the race card, perhaps most notably here (HT MarkedManner Blog):

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to try to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperience and has a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Well, I sure didn’t say that “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH, PUNK” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein ObambiObama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters, Previously Unaccomplished Nonsupporter of Kin) is black. I could care less about what race he is. Those around him, however, are obsessed, from the bogus construct known as Black Liberation Theology to the R-word they won’t utter but long for (reparations).

Because — and here’s perhaps the biggest joke of all on race-ethnicity-gender-orientation-identity-obsessed Obama supporters — he isn’t “black,” i.e., African-American. Read the link, and the follow-up. The only reason Obama can call himself “black” or “African-American” is that he self-identifies himself that way.* Based on ancestry, he isn’t.

Obama could have, and should have, chosen to run as an ambitious American citizen who believes his ideas are better and can make the country better who “just happens” to be non-white; but, as Cornell notes, he didn’t.**

We are all poorer for it.

* – “Self-identification” permits a person to claim any racial or ethnic identity he or she darn well pleases, even on any given day.
** – Though I don’t agree that the first non-white to hold the highest office in the land will have to come from slave ancestry for the perceived racial breakthrough to occur.