October 30, 2008

HOPE ON Callout: Mary Jo ‘Of Course’ Kilroy

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:08 pm

HOPEONlogoNOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated or voter-perceived 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 today’s not-so-coveted callout is 15th District Congressional candidate Mary Jo Kilroy.

_____________________________________

Here is roughly how a call earlier this week to the campaign of Mary Jo Kilroy, who is a Democrat running for Congress in Ohio’s 15th District, transpired.

Upon identifying myself by name and asking the person who answered the phone whether Ms. Kilroy had endorsed Barack Obama, I was told “I would assume so,” but was put on hold with the mute off. During that time, I heard someone say in the background that “I think it’s really strange that someone would call about that.” (Really?)

Eventually, I ended up with a guy who I think is the communications director, someone named “Brad.” Brad told me that “of course” Kilroy supports Obama, informed me that “I know who you are,” and asked me “When’s the story going to run?” Ever helpful, I told him that depending on priorities, it would either run not at all or would go up sometime in the next 7 days.

Boy, that was a lot of effort to get what should have been an easy answer.

But it’s really easy to understand. MJ “Of Course” Kilroy is yet another in a long line of Democrats posing as moderates while supporting that left-of-Nader agent of (redistributionist) change, Barack Hussein Obama.

First, and most obvious, Kilroy is extraordinarily hostile to innocent human life. You must be so to get the “coveted” Emily’s List (EL) endorsement. And she has.

As a refresher, here’s how Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post described the litmus test EL applies to candidates in April of 2002 (article copied to BizzyBlog host from ProQuest library database, for fair use and discussion purposes only):

A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.

As I said in connection with Robin Weirauch’s candidacy in OH-05 last year, this is NOT a status quo position, but a radical position that advocates the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, the heinous procedure the Supreme Court outlawed earlier this last year.

At that time I wrote the following, which completely applies to MJ “Of Course” Kilroy:

Grasp the impact, folks: EL only supports candidates who want reinstitute a practice that is so barbaric that ardent pro-choicers ….. can’t even work up the nerve to unequivocally use its proper and widely-accepted name — partial-birth abortion, a term used for at least two decades. Instead, they prefer to whitewash it, “describing” it as “a certain late-term abortion procedure.”

Yeah, right. A description of partial-birth abortion (WARNING: contains graphic and likely upsetting language) is here (begins at third paragraph).

A video clip from “A Distant Thunder” describes the procedure more dramatically, and appropriately:

By the way, in its decision earlier this year, the Supreme Court allowed “partial-birth abortion” as an acceptable term for the purposes of legal argument.

But Kilroy is even MORE radical than EL. Why? Because she, “of course,” supports Barack Obama.

As noted earlier this week, Obama’s hostility towards and disregard for innocent life go further than EL does in at least the following ways:

  • 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, 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.
  • 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.

Despite all of this, MJ Kilroy has “of course” endorsed Barack Obama. Given the powers of the presidency Obama could assume and his ability to carry out his over-the-top agenda, that makes his views her views, whether she likes it or not.

I suspect that Kilroy’s life-hostile, life-disregarding radicalism is not widely known to voters in Ohio’s 15th congressional district. It should be. Hopefully it now will be.

But there’s more, on another matter.

Like her party’s standard-bearer, MJ “Of Course” Kilroy seems to have a certain affinity for people who are hostile to our country and our way of life.

I can’t explain Ms Kilroy’s motivations. But I can document said affinity, and, if I have the time, I will — sometime in the next 4 days. :–>

Obama’s DKos Post in 2005 Explains the Need for Candidate Callouts for Their Support of Obama

Filed under: Economy,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:03 pm

What follows is the intro from Sweetness & Light (box is mine; HT Gateway Pundit):

ObamaToDkos2005

The whole post is at S&L, so you can avoid the need for the hazmat suit that would be needed to safely visit DKos.

Despite the furious attempts to keep it under wraps, Obama’s hoodwinking has been exposed for all with open eyes to see. This in turn exposes Obama-supporting candidates in Ohio and elsewhere who are attempting to hoodwink their voters — which is why they need to be called out, and forcefully.

Since I won’t be able to get to all “deserving” candidates, the following, in order of importance, identifies the most obvious hoodwinks (fill in the blanks for the candidate involved):

1. Protecting Innocent Life

A mountain of evidence demonstrates that Candidate ________________’s claim to be prolife and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Candidate ________________’s claim to be prolife and his/her failure to speak out forcefully against the life-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama is unforgivable. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the fondest dreams of those who wish to make human life a matter of state-sanctioned convenience, and to impose their will on those who disagree.

Given Obama’s power to issue life-hostile Executive Orders and his clear intent, based on his track record and rhetoric, to nominate life-hostile judges, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.

2. Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Candidate ________________’s claim to support individual gun rights and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Further, Candidate ___________________’s failure to speak out forcefully against the Second Amendment-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama is unforgivable. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the gun-grabbers’ fondest dreams.

Given Omama’s power to issue Second Amendment-hostile Executive Orders and his clear intent, based on his track record and rhetoric, to nominate Second Amendment-hostile judges, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.

3. (NEW ADDITION) Economy and Taxes

Based on Barack Obama’s long record of class warfare-driven, redistributionist, Constitution-hostile rhetoric and votes, it is clear that Candidate ________________’s claims to be a reliable defender of free-market capitalism, a fundamental believer in this nation’s founding documents, and his/her support of Barack Obama are incurably incompatible. Candidate ________________’s failure to speak out forcefully against the economic and redistributionist tax plans of Barack Obama is a grave disappointment. These points are not arguable. His/her support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the fondest dreams of those who value redistributing wealth over growing the economy and making everyone wealthier, in the process subverting the clear intent of our Founders without the required consent of the people through a constitutional amendment.

Given his power to producer- and taxpayer-hostile Executive Orders and the possibility of producer- and taxpayer-hostile majorities in the Senate and the House, Candidate ________________’s possible cop-out that an Obama administration would not make things worse is completely untenable, and either hopelessly naive or fundamentally dishonest.

Does Anyone Remember a Previous Election …..

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:58 pm

….. where the percentage of undecideds goes UP in the final weeks as seen here?

Battleground102908

Nancy Pelosi, call your office.

McCain-Palin, it’s long past time to start associating congressmen and senators with “(redistributive) change.” If they support Obama, they support “(redistributive) change,” regardless of their posturing.

Nader v. Obama

Filed under: Positivity,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:45 am

I heard a few radio ads for the 21st Century’s Harold Stassen yesterday, and it occurred to me: “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 to the left of Nader — and by quite a distance.

I could see the real “redistributive change” Obama agreeing with Nader on almost every issue here. Add his real track record on Second Amendment rights and his beyond-Emily’s-List stances on abortion and human life, and you’ve got a guy who makes Nader look like a mainstream liberal.

UPDATE: If you take away the truther stuff, the real Obama isn’t that far to the right of Cynthia McKinney.

HOPE ON Project, Day 11: Let’s Never Find Out Part 11 — ‘The Anti-Reagan’

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:20 am

HOPEONlogo.jpgNote: This is the eleventh 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 of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 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”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”); Part 10 (“Income Taxes”).

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 Darke Blog.

______________________________________________

Video (direct YouTube link):

Transcript:

MAN 1: Senator McCain, history has shown us your economic plans will work.
WOMAN 1: When Ronald Reagan took office, the economy was far worse than it is today.
MAN 2: You understand that Reagan’s plan worked. Senator Obama does not.
WOMAN 2: Ronald Reagan cut marginal tax rates, dividend, and captial gains taxes. Senator Obama will raise them.
WOMAN 3: Ronald Reagan cut taxes on small businesses. Senator Obama will raise them.
MAN 4: Ronald Reagan cut spending and reduced the size of the federal government. Senator Obama plans to increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars. So who’s right?
WOMAN 1: During Reagan’s eight years, the Gross Domestic Product nearly doubled. The net worth of a middle class household, again, nearly doubled, and 14 million new jobs were created.
MAN 5: Senator McCain, we are hopeful.
MAN 4: Because your economic policies are the policies of Ronald Reagan.
MAN 2: As a nation in crisis, we’d be fools not to embrace your ideas.
ANNOUNCER: What happens when we pick the alternative? Please America. Let’s never find out.

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

Commentary from Darke Blog:

The big economic news of the day is that the GDP went down 0.3% during the third quarter. The drop was less than expected, but still not good. And if it happens again in the fourth quarter, we will have achieved the much-discussed recession that has been a regular topic during this election season.

Combine with that the credit crisis, lost jobs, and a huge stock market hit – and it’s obvious we need to grow our economy … now. History shows that you do not grow the economy by raising taxes and expanding government. You do the opposite – just like Reagan did.

The record is clear that Reagan cuts taxes across the board, reduced the size of government, and ushered in an extended period of economic propsperity. But those on the other end of the political spectrum can’t (or won’t) accept these lessons of history. Mention “Reagan” to a liberal and you will start an argument. Mention “trickle down” and you might have a fight on your hands.

Barack Obama ignores history by promising higher taxes to those who have annual income over $250,000. Or mabye $200,000? Or $150,000? And at the same time he is promising these higher taxes, he is also proposing massive new spending, including the biggest entitlement of them all – national health care (if you don’t believe me, catch the rerun of Obama’s 30-minute informercial). These policies are poor in good economic times – right now, they are a recipe for disaster.

Barack Obama going forward will be the same Barack Obama we’ve seen in the past. Higher taxes. New programs. Big spending. Liberal policies. He truly is the Anti-Reagan.

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

Additional BizzyBlog Comment:

This “worst economy since the Great Depression” and/or “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” crap is getting very old (after the election, someone’s going to have to explain where the freeze on credit is hiding). The economy during the 1980 election was much worse.

In 1981, when Reagan took office after the disastrous Democratic Party-dominated years of Jimmy Carter, the prime rate was in double digits (at one point, it was over 20%. Both unemployment and inflation were much, much higher than they are currently. We get one Democrat-manufactured quarter of negative growth thanks to the purveyors of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy and we’re supposed to chuck the free-market capitalism that has made this country the envy of the world for “(redistributive) change,” or Carter and McGovern on steroids, and beyond. No thanks.

GDP Contracted 0.075% in the Third Quarter

That’s because the reported 0.3% is an ANNUALIZED rate.

Actually, it’s a 0.0749158% contraction if you consider compounding. I’m sure readers appreciate the rounding.

So according to Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the value of all goods and services produced in the economy during the quarter ended September 30 was, in real terms, on a seasonally adjusted basis, and subject to revision, 99.925% of the value of all goods and services produced in the economy during the quarter ended June 30.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Watch how many media reports fail to report that minus 0.3% is an annualized rate.

Regardless, the purveyors of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy and their media friends have gotten the negative number they so longed for in hopes of influencing the presidential election. Nice work, guys; you must be REALLY proud.

I am not pleased to report that I predicted this result on July 3.

Chuckie Schumer scheduled a press conference two weeks ago in anticipation of this Aramageddon-like event so he could promost another round of “stimulus.” I’d say that gas prices falling 50%, largely because President Bush and the Republicans in Congress finally got off their butts and insisted on allowing offshore drilling (affecting worldwide oil-supply expectations) is stimulus enough.

Schumer has no shame. You could make a case that his antics with IndyMac Bank might be responsible for a large portion of the GDP drop.

Latest Pajamas Media Column (‘Early Voting Is a Travesty’) Is Up

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:52 am

It’s here.

It will go up Saturday at BizzyBlog (link won’t work until then).

Couldn’t get to in the column: Much of the blame for the early voting fiasco in Ohio goes to the allegedly GOP-controlled General Assembly. Despite the fact that voters soundly rejected the misnamed, George Soros-inspired 2005 Reform Ohio initiatives, which included early voting (Issue 2), the Assembly preemptively passed HB 234, which adopted much of what was in Issue 2, and opened the door for ACORN’s fraud artists and fraud-enabling Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Thanks, guys and gals.

If we give a rip about the integrity of elections, we need to return to:

  • One day.
  • One vote.
  • Rare exceptions.

Oh, and while I’m at it, the only person who should be allowed to turn in a voter registration card should be the registering voter (imagine that), and only to a Board of Elections official or employee on payroll. BOEs should of course be sufficiently staffed to do appropriate but controlled outreach.