There are reasons to not vote for either presidential candidate, based on my personal belief system, and a system of logic based on what has made America so unique among nation states and what has and hasn’t worked throughout history. Senator Obama has, based on his voting record and public statements, compiled for me the more extensive list of why he should not be the leader of the free world.

Protection of life, especially innocent life, is not just moral but it is also legal. Yet the Senator has vowed to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, allowing abortions at any stage of development, including the gruesome and immoral partial-birth abortion. The Act would also repeal the Hyde Amendment which will allow for taxpayer money to support the abortion industry.

Obama has said he would appoint justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens. In other words, he will appoint judges who think their role is to legislate from the bench rather than rule based on constitutionality. As an example, Stephens often votes on the court based on international law precedence, not constitutionality. That is not the role of a Supreme Court Justice.

As I wrote two weeks ago in greater depth, Obama’s economic policies are the same as Hoover’s which led to the Great Depression. That’s not what our nation needs now.

Obama proved through his exchange with “Joe the plumber” last week that he is a socialist and wants to take your money and “spread the wealth around.” The head of the American Communist Party hasn’t publically endorsed Obama, but admits he’s “excited at the prospects of an Obama presidency.” If the Senator wants to be president of a socialist country, I would suggest he move to Cuba. He can duke it out with Raul.

Obama has surrounded himself throughout his life with friends, associates, and colleagues who are ultra-liberal, anti-American, socialists, and terrorists. These are not just casual relationships, but have been the political alliances that endeared him to the Chicago political machine and launched him onto the political stage. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Wall Street Journal Obama sought out those alliances when he moved to Chicago. And remember, he’ll be taking 3,000 of that kind of thinking to Washington with him.

Although Obama has said recently that he opposes a redefinition of marriage, there are plenty of times he’s spoken in favor of it, including last year’s highly visible address to NARAL. If Proposition 8 fails in California, it’s easy to imagine Obama leading a national effort to redefine marriage. It will be taught in schools and inculcated into children as early as kindergarten and will lead to an assault on freedom of speech and religion. Why else would Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN -- the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, now be serving as a fundraising co-chair for the Obama campaign?

ACORN, the unofficial election fraud wing of the Obama campaign, will be at the table in an Obama administration. You can see a video of him making that promise on the internet.

Pelosi, Reid and Obama create a frightful triumvirate driving the country to the far left. Left-leaning party rule with no checks or balances is dangerous. Look at the states that have become dominated leftist ideology: Michigan, Louisiana (until recently), New York, California, all on the verge of bankruptcy. Out-of-control government spending and entitlement spending, and exorbitant taxation are their common characteristics, and companies are fleeing their states, according to Investor’s Business Daily.

Obama was befriended in Chicago by Rashid Khallidi, a former PLO spokesman, who is anti-Israel. Obama returned the favor by granting funds from the Woods Fund that he directed, to Khallidi’s pro-PLO group, the Arab American Action Group, which has been under investigation for terrorist funding. Khallidi glorifies anti-Israel violence as contributing to “political enlightenment”and admires those who carry it out. This makes it extremely difficult to believe Obama when he says he’s “pro-Israel.”

Obama has said we just can’t, as a nation, “set our thermostats for 72 degrees, drive our SUVs, eat as much as we want, and consume as a nation as we have done.” So what is he proposing, that the government tell us what to set our thermostats to, what to drive, and what to eat? Does that sound like America to you?

Obama supported the DC gun ban and questions the legitimacy of the 2^nd Amendment guaranteeing us gun rights. Better hold onto your guns.

According to Joe Biden, Obama will be tested by international events in the first six months of his administration and we won’t like how he handles it. That doesn’t instill a great deal of confidence. And why would the President of Iran and the leader of Hamas “endorse” Obama? What would the sworn enemies of America have to gain from an Obama presidency? The prospects cause me to shudder.

The Senator had served in the U.S. Senate just 143 days before announcing his candidacy for the Presidency. How many corporate employees do you think are ready to head a corporation after working for a company for 143 days? Does experience really not count for anything anymore?

And finally, Obama has stated that illegal aliens should be granted drivers licenses, Social Security benefits, Medicaid, amnesty, and U.S. citizenship.

            Those are the major obstacles that would preclude me from seriously considering Obama as President. To me, the position is just too important for someone of negligible experience, extreme liberal positions in key social areas, failed economic policies, and questionable political alliances.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/19/08

Listening to Senator Obama these days is like listening to any mainstream politician. Everything he’s saying now seems well thought out, not too radical, and pretty middle-of-the-road type political posturing. The problem is, that’s exactly what it is: political posturing.

There’s a reason he received a 100% Liberal Rating from the National Journal. That rating made him even more radical than Ted Kennedy. That means that what he’s built his political career on, extreme leftists causes and positions, is simply being hidden for these few months before the general election because he knows he can’t say publicly now what he really believes. Makes one wonder if there is a multiple personality disorder struggling somewhere under the surface. So we might well ask, will the real Obama please stand up?

In the debate earlier this week he said he would like to see the number of abortions reduced. I wonder if that bothered his NARAL backers who he told last year that he “absolutely defends the right for every single abortion.” That’s what he really believes, because that’s how he’s voted as a lawmaker. In Illinois he even voted 3 times against legislation that would protect the lives of infants born after botched abortions. Even NARAL doesn’t go that far.

In the debate the other night he said he wanted to win the election “based on my ideas and ability to lead.” That seems odd. His campaign has given over $300,000 to ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Could it be he’s hedging his bet? After all, ACORN is the group that is under investigation for fraudulent voter registrations in seven states, including dead people. The most interesting of these is the Las Vegas ACORN group which registered the entire roster of the Dallas Cowboys football team to vote in Nevada. Well, I guess he figures if he can’t do it based on his ideas and ability to lead, he’s just got to win, whatever it takes! That must be the group that my friend was referring to the other day when he said his parents had never voted Democratic until after they died. Now it makes sense.

Oh, and just for reference, it was this same ACORN which Obama and his friends in Congress tried to enrich at our expense with the bailout bill. They tried to get a portion of the proceeds of future sales of mortgage securities given to ACORN. Wow! Just think how many dead, felonious, and fraudulent votes they could produce for the Democrat party for generations with a portion of $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities! I guess if you can’t win on ideas and ideology, you have to win somehow. Right Senator? What makes this even more disconcerting, is Obama promised ACORN that they will sit with him in shaping policy in his administration. Now that’s sobering, but perhaps not surprising, since Obama has not only represented them legally but has done training for them.

Obama now makes a point of wearing a flag lapel pin and says how much he loves America, and how it’s the greatest country in the world. I wonder if that upsets all of his Chicago political machine friends when he does that? His preacher of 20 years didn’t seem to think that way. He’s the one, you’ll recall, that said, “Not God bless America, but G** D*** America.” I’m sure his buddy Bill Ayers doesn’t like it when Obama talks like that. Speaking of which, did you know that Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden have something in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

That’s right, Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn bombed the Pentagon, and several other buildings, killed a couple of people, and now they’re revered members of the Chicago liberal elite. Ayers is even a professor now. Aren’t you glad your kids don’t go to University of Illinois? But Ayers said he didn’t do enough. To put this in perspective, think of Ayers as a Timothy McVeigh domestic terrorist. Ayers has a very patriotic picture from the Chicago Magazine of him grinding the American flag into the ground with his boots. No, I don’t think Obama’s buddy Ayers likes it when Obama talks like that.

Speaking of Ayers, does it bother you at all that Obama could not gain security clearance by the FBI, CIA, Military, or Secret Service because of his relationship with a known terrorist? Now that’s troublesome and ironic at the same time. 

Obama has been pretty clear about wanting to make those responsible for our current financial morass pay for their greed and illegalities. I wonder if that makes his close friend Tony Rezko uncomfortable at all? Rezko, you’ll recall, is the indicted criminal behind multi-million dollar real estate deals that were scams and bilked Illinois and U.S. taxpayers out of millions of dollars. No, I’m sure Rezko doesn’t feel uncomfortable when Obama talks that way, because Obama helped him get the taxpayer funds to engage in some of those illegal activities. Plus, he’s been convicted already, so the worst Obama could do is turn states’ evidence and give him a few more years.

Obama even talks about tax-cuts now. That’s downright humorous considering he’s never voted for one, in Illinois or in D.C. I think a sign in Louisiana accurately summed up Obama in this regard. The sign said, “A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.”

There is just so much conflicting evidence between what Obama has done in the past, and what he’s saying to us today. It really makes you want to say, “Will the real Obama please stand up?” But I think he already has. And it’s not the one we see today sprinting toward the middle-of-the-road.

After the stock market crash of 1929, President Herbert Hoover sought to shore up the country’s ailing economy with a series of brash measures. He increased taxes, adopted a protectionist posture to “save American jobs,” and increased regulation. While his policies played well in a populist way with American voters, they significantly exacerbated a deepening economic depression and in the end not only hurt the economy, but profoundly affected all Americans psychologically as well as economically.

Are we about to relive that dark period of American history? We should know in about three weeks, as one of our Presidential candidates has the same policies as the now infamous Herbert Hoover espoused.

I am astounded that Obama can get away with saying he will not raise taxes, but will rather decrease taxes on America’s middle class. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were touted as the largest tax-cuts in history and have worked wonders not only for the amount of money they allowed working Americans to keep in their own pockets, but in increasing Treasury Receipts of revenue flowing into the treasury, up 35% since 2003 according to the Congressional Budget Office. But Obama has made it abundantly clear that he wants the Bush tax cuts to expire the end of 2010, while McCain advocates making them permanent. Without mincing words, if the Bush tax-cuts expire, we will experience the largest tax increase in history. Deductively, then, Obama advocates the largest tax increase ever, and the harshest impact will be felt by the middle-class.

Let’s look at what the Bush tax cuts have meant to the average American, and what happens if they expire. A single person making $30,000, will see Federal income taxes increase from $4,500 to $8,400. Married couples making $60,000 will see their taxes go from $9,000 to $16,800; married couples earning $75,000 will see their income taxes go from$18,750 to $21,000, and those making $125,000 will increase from $31,250 to $38,750. Those are middle-class income ranges.

In addition to the increase in income taxes, the marriage penalty will be restored. The difference between what you pay in taxes as a married couple and what you would pay as two single persons is often referred to as the marriage tax penalty. According to the Congressional Budget Office that penalty amounts to $1,400 per tax-paying couple.

Even more inscrutably, Obama advocates increasing the capital gains tax rate from the current rate of 15% to 20%, 25%, or even 28%, depending on which campaign speech you read. That means if you sell your home and make $100,000 on the sale, instead of paying $15,000 on the capital gains, you would pay $20,000, $25,000, or even $28,000 on the profit.

The same holds true for stock and mutual fund sales, which would affect over 60% of households. And if you receive dividends from your stock and mutual fund portfolios, the taxes you pay on those dividends will go from 15% back to a maximum of 39.6%. So instead of paying just $1,500 in taxes on $10,000 of dividends, you will be paying as much as $3,960 in taxes. There are other factors that may affect that rate, but for the sake of simplification and space limitations, I can’t address those here.

In light of this data, it is not only unconscionable for Obama to say he will not raise taxes on the middle class, but it is dishonest.

As for international trade, Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was supposed to protect American jobs and markets by raising taxes on imported goods to record levels. The affects proved to be disastrous to the economy and deepened the depression. Unemployment skyrocketed across the nation, especially in the export sector, and what little revenue was recovered from tariffs hardly offset the loss in revenue from the lost jobs, even union labor which the tariffs were supposed to protect. Obama has spoken like a true protectionist by blasting free trade agreements. He argued against the Columbia Free Trade agreement, and regarding NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) said in a debate in March, “I will make sure we renegotiate. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.”

Economists nearly universally credit our open trade policies for preventing the U.S. from dropping into recession thus far, with the latest reading for 2^nd quarter of 2.7% GDP (Gross Domestic Production) growth rate. That is remarkable when we consider that second-quarter GDP was down 1.2% in France, 2% in Germany, 3% in Japan and 5.5%-6% in Hong Kong and Singapore. Our exports amounted to $1.7 trillion in 2007 making us the biggest exporter in the world, largely because of our free trade agreements. According to the Wall Street Journal, 16 million U.S. jobs are dependent on exports.

Obama essentially admitted that higher taxes and protectionism would hurt the economy when he said last week he may have to delay implementation of his plans depending on how the economy is doing when he takes office.

Some have said that an Obama administration would be like a 2^nd term for Carter. In light of his domestic policies, it might be even more disastrous: like a 2^nd term for Herbert Hoover.

One of the most disturbing elements of this charged election season has been the ineptitude and bias of the mainstream media. Pick up any newspaper, watch any TV news report, listen to any political analyst on TV, and the empirical evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of journalists and news reporters consider themselves to be liberal.

You know that if there was any Republican even remotely involved with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac they would be journalistically crucified by now. Yet when you dig for the truth, Democrats Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Maxine Waters, etc. ad nauseam, have their fingerprints all over the failures of the two mortgage giants. Just “google” any of those names with either of the two mortgage companies, or better yet, search for the actual video on YouTube of these people defending the mortgage guarantors, and the evidence is indisputable. Does any reasonable person think that if there were any videos like that of a Republican that it wouldn’t be aired on every TV news show and plastered across the headlines of every newspaper? Where’s the media outrage that these so-called stewards of the public trust allowed those companies to continue to operate without oversight and no accountability and help bring our nation economically to its knees?

Remember Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, and Ken Lay of Enron? They are continually held up as exemplars of Wall Street corruption by the media for their avarice and causing the loss of jobs and millions of dollars to shareholders and employees. The media ran the video of their “perp walks” in handcuffs on a continuous loop, holding them to public contempt for their greed and harm they inflicted. Yet where is Jim Johnson, the first Fannie Mae CEO forced out of office for doctoring the books, the same thing Ebbers and Lay did? He’s serving as an “economic advisor” to the Obama campaign and initially headed Obamas vice-presidential search committee! Why isn’t he facing charges, and behind bars for doing what Ebbers and Lay did? And how about his successor, Franklin Raines? He’s not on the Obama payroll like Johnson is, but apparently he’s consulting with the Obama campaign on economic and housing issues as well. Why isn’t he behind bars? Is your confidence increased in the Obama economic plan to have two crooks who have escaped prosecution and accountability serving as Obama advisors? These two have literally threatened our national economic security. I would love to see their “perp walk.”

You want to know who created this problem? Fannie and Freddie, and their facilitators in Congress who gave them free reign, and the media who have allowed them to get away with it. It’s not Wall Street and the banks. They were writing and trading the mortgage paper that Fannie and Freddie wanted and the enabling Democratic leaders encouraged. And the media play along with them.

Just look at how the media has covered the events of the past week. Nancy Pelosi had the gall and audacity to blame the current economic mess on the Republicans of the House in her debate prior to the vote. She knew the bailout bill wouldn’t pass, and that her party wasn’t with her, yet she brought it intentionally to a vote knowing it would fail. I know how that works. My father was a Speaker, and they don’t bring something to the floor in current form if they know it’s going to fail, unless they want it to. Yet on Friday she claimed it was a “bipartisan” effort to defeat a bad bill. Sorry, Nancy, you can’t have it both ways.

So why is Pelosi never held to account for her blatant mendacity? The media never call her to task. They kowtow to her, bowing dutifully and subserviently at the altar of her liberal ideology. She blames the House Republicans for not passing the first bailout bill last week, even though her party is in control and they can pass any contemptible legislation they want. But is she asked why 94 members of her party voted against it? No. It’s simply blamed on the House Republicans and the media swallows that explanation because it fit’s their narrative and ideology.

The Democrats in Congress have used Fannie and Freddie as their own private piggy banks for social engineering of the mortgage industry, contributions to liberal political action groups, and campaign contributions. And now that the whole house of cards is falling, they are blaming Republicans for letting them do it. If ever there was a “culture of corruption” in D.C., it is now, and we’re entrusting those who created and perpetuate it to “solve” our economic challenges. And the media would rather dig through Palin’s garbage to fabricate news than to expose the culpability behind our economic system’s collapse!

Perhaps this is why the media are even more hateful and vindictive toward McCain and Palin than they normally are against Republican candidates. McCain is vocal about eradicating corruption in Washington, and the corruption behind our mortgage industry is almost entirely owned by Democratic Congressmen. If McCain and Palin are elected, not only will it prove the media’s inefficacy in brainwashing all of us, but their primary accomplices in Washington might be exposed for what they are and have done to our country.