Obama

[nChrist]

Sounds like he wants the illegal votes of the illegal aliens.

Obama is a con man - nothing more. He works people to get what he wants, and he says something different at every stop. He couldn't keep up with all of his lies if that was his full-time job. I'd rather disagree with someone telling the truth. In fact, I think that cons are more trustworthy than Obama. Cons won't sell people out.

[HisDaughter]

Obama is a con man - nothing more.

I can't remember the last time I heard truer words than this!

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech
'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.

According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:

    We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election."

Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.

In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it's likely one of Obama's handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.

"Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it," Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are "delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub."

Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and "in the moment of the speech, he decided, 'they're back in.'"

Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to "pay closer attention to Obama's speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he's really good on a fixed script. And we know that he's really bad on his own."

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, one reader said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that."

Added another: "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."

"I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines."

And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. … As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."

He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."

[Soldier4Christ]

The left is always complaining about the "totalitarian government" of the U.S. yet this is exactly what Obama, Pelosi, Reid and those like them want for us and are in fact working hard to obtain. Of course their eyes are closed to this and these people will continue on their current paths.

[nChrist]

The left is always complaining about the "totalitarian government" of the U.S. yet this is exactly what Obama, Pelosi, Reid and those like them want for us and are in fact working hard to obtain. Of course their eyes are closed to this and these people will continue on their current paths.

Brother, you hit the nail square on the head. There appears to be more insanity and socialism by the day, and I can't believe that vast numbers of potential voters can't see it. Obama talks about a list of things that amount to huge government, pie in the sky spending that will break average people, and socialist agendas that Russia would be proud of. This isn't Russia, at least not yet. We are still a free country, but we have been abused pretty badly by a government that is supposed to be a servant of the people. We do want change, but not the type of change that Obama is offering. We have no desire to be like Russia - just the opposite - we want our freedom back! In fact, we want our country back. It never belonged to our government or any other entity that is a servant of the people. We want our laws, our Constitutions, and our rights respected, preserved, and enforced. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT WE DEMAND!

[Shammu]

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."

"Energy Corps"

Elite National Enforcement Restoring Guideance to Youth --- Cops Only Rightfully Permited Service to islam

Yes I still believe, Obama has close ties to islam.

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families.

As you can tell I've been waiting for Obama-nation to come out and say this.

[HisDaughter]

 

[nChrist]

Hello GrammyLuv and All,

I do believe that the End Times of this age are near. Regardless, I still find this election to be shocking. A large percentage of our voters don't see any problem at all. In fact, they're happy with the Obama choice. This is just another example of how far and how quickly this part of the world has fallen. Our own part of the world is in need of Prayer.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 152 - Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

[HisDaughter]

The Candidate As Cult Leader
(from Townhall.com)

Barack Obama isn’t just conducting a political campaign; he’s launching his very own religious cult.

Under the headline “Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own,” the New York Times reported on a bizarre fad among the candidate’s enraptured acolytes: across the country, they’ve begun adopting his middle name, Hussein. “The result is a group of unlikely sounding Husseins,” writes reporter Jodi Kantor, “from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Oklahoma, to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.”

One of the key elements in many religious cults involves a name change – like transitioning from Richard Alpert to Baba Ram Dass, or from Malcolm Little to Malcolm X. To Obama’s true-believers, adding an Islamic middle name is a small price to pay for connecting with a candidate who qualifies as a “lightworker” and “an enlightened being,” according to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford.

“Many spiritually advanced people I know,” he writes, “identify Obama as a Lightworker, the rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.” (Italics in the original)

Author Garen Thomas makes similar observations in “Yes We Can: A Biography of Barack Obama”, a newly published book for children. “There has emerged a new leader who seems to be granting Americans a renewed license to dream. Barack Obama has proven repeatedly that he can touch people from all genders,” (not just both of them, you’ll note, but all of ‘em), “political affiliations, and across racial divides. There are few times in your life when you have a real opportunity to alter the course of history and put civilization back on a course toward prosperity and unity for all races and genders.” All of them—again. “If you were to look at dates in your history books, you might see centuries pass before something remarkable and worth noting occurred, when one person or a group of people stood up for change, making an enlightened leap in the evolution of the human story.”

Among those willing to make precisely that sort of “enlightened leap” is the 1980’s “Culture Club” star, the inimitable Boy George, who wrote his latest song to honor “the enlightened being” from Illinois. The chorus proclaims “Yes We Can/Make it to the Promised Land,” but Boy George himself couldn’t quit make it to the promised land of the United States due to visa problems regarding his history of drug busts.

Nevertheless, others who did manage to bask in the actual presence of The Lightworker described the experience in terms calling to mind the knock-kneed awe of Dorothy and friends as they tremulously approached the Great Oz. The Los Angeles Times quoted actor Eric Christian Olsen as saying: “Nothing is more fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him.” Nothing, Mr. Olsen? Not your love of your wife or your partner or your parents or your country, or the death of your dog or the visit of Pope Benedict or the Red Sox winning the series? Nothing more powerful than meeting Obama?

Describing the thrill of his all-too-fleeting encounter with the Hope Pope, Olsen continued: “I stood, my hand embraced in his and…I felt something…something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of Hope.” (capitalization in the original).

Reading through numerous similar accounts, I, too, felt something….something that I can only describe as an overpowering sense of … embarrassment.

How can intelligent and responsible people fall for this mass hysteria over a politician whose only real accomplishment in 47 years of living has been to build up the mass hysteria and messianic expectations surrounding this campaign? When I was in high school, I remember feeling puzzled and bemused by the similar frenzy surrounding the hip new British band, the Beatles. Yeah, they were great musicians and their clothes and hair cuts looked indisputably cool, but it still seemed hard to explain the smart teenaged girls I knew who flocked to see them at the Hollywood Bowl and ended up shrieking to the point of hoarseness, while weeping and, literally, wetting themselves in an orgy of adulation.

The difference, of course, is that we can still listen to Beatles songs with pleasure and satisfaction some forty years later, but it’s doubtful that any Obama speech (let alone his fumbling, bumbling off-teleprompter interviews) will thrill anyone even next year.

As with other moments of religious and quasi-religious frenzy, it’s not what the candidate is saying, or the proposals (what proposals, exactly?) he’s making, or even Obama himself that creates the manic energy surrounding his campaign. It’s the phenomenon itself, the crazed delirium of the Oba-maniacs, that compels attention, even fascination. Some people went to those first Beatles concerts as much to watch the tearful, hysterical, hollering adolescent girls as to hear the music; in fact those screaming sweeties usually drowned out the performances on stage so crowds couldn’t even hear the tunes and lyrics. It didn’t matter for the participants, who cared only about the transcendent excitement, the mass delirium, of the historic experience.

So, too, the messianic yearnings and wild-eyed, zombie-like devotion of Obama’s unhinged followers comes across as far more exciting and significant than the surprisingly pedestrian and platitudinous substance of his actual campaign. For the candidate as cult leader, it’s not the message; it’s the moment.

[HisDaughter]

BARAK OBAMA & THE UN's DRIVE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

By Tom DeWeese
July 20, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Senator Barack Obama has introduced a dangerous bill and it's on the fast track to Senate passage, probably because of his high profile position as the expected Democrat presidential nominee. Obama hasn't done much legislatively in his freshman Senate term, but this one is very telling about what we can expect from a President Obama.

The bill is the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) and is not just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill is directly tied to the United Nations and serves as little more than a shakedown of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. In fact, if passed, The Global Poverty Act will provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates are that it will add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money for welfare to third world countries, in addition to the $300 billion Americans spent for the same thing in 2006.

The situation is urgent because the Global Poverty Act has already passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote on September 25, 2007. The senate version has been passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent and ready for a full Senate vote.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. And the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its herd of programs. So what's new about Obama's bill, and why is it dangerous?

Some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared to be a blueprint for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed "principles":

Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an "international code of conduct" concerning the environment and labor standards.

Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN - meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the "global commons," meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an "Assembly of the People" which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs "civil society"). Now, the UN says these NGO's will be the representatives of the "people" and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

Principle Six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies "as part of a multinational global security system" under the authority of the UN.

Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN "Human rights" treaties and declarations.

Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations - now achieved.

Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring "Sustainable Development."

Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high level action team" to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights - The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the "equitable sharing" of global resources, as allocated by the UN - here is where Obama's Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth's land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth's resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN's Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN's Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren't quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those "suggestions" were put together in the "Millennium Declaration" in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed - just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called "Millennium Goals," and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could opposes such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the "goals" says on its website that it intends to "end poverty by 2015." A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look - they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 - to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for "Millennium Development Goals" which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won't go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama's bill specifically mentions the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015..."

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation - only today we call it "going green;" and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now much evidence surfacing to debunk the theory.

Clearly, Obama's bill has been introduced to assure the United States falls in line with the Millennium Declaration and all that it stands for. After all, the UN needs the money to pay for its new found power. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged. Barack Obama wants to be a "world" leader.

[Soldier4Christ]

All I can say is that I am not the least bit surprised on either of those articles.

[HisDaughter]

All I can say is that I am not the least bit surprised on either of those articles.

Neither am I but it's pretty scarry.

[nChrist]

All I can say is two things:

1) GOD, please help us and strengthen us to do your will until the last moment.

2) LORD, please come quickly. Your children are ready to come HOME.

Note: My Christian quote program is random and currently contains about 1,000 various quotes. Look below and see what came up.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 437 - Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly:
hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

[Soldier4Christ]

All I can say is two things:

1) GOD, please help us and strengthen us to do your will until the last moment.

2) LORD, please come quickly. Your children are ready to come HOME.

Note: My Christian quote program is random and currently contains about 1,000 various quotes. Look below and see what came up.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Favorite Bible Quotes 437 - Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly:
hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Amen and amen! His word is pure and always holds true.

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama: I’ll Be President For ‘The Next 8 to 10 Years’?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the reputed “Constitutional scholar,” just today said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he went to Iraq to talk to important leader that he expects to be “dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.” So, does this “Constitutional scholar” not realize that there is this little thing called the 22nd Amendment that holds a president to only two, four year terms? Um, that would be a grand total of only 8 years, Barack, not 8 to 10. Of course, the big question is, will we see this idiot gaffe race through the MSM as it would if a Republican had said it?

At the very least ABC’s Jake Tapper, one of the best political reporters in the biz, sure noticed. Tapper has a blog entry on his “Political Punch” blog all about it with an amusing side note about time travel added in just for fun.

    Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

Lastly, we have yet one more example of this man’s arrogance. He is beginning to carry on foreign policy before he even gets elected!

    “And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.”

You see, Barack, that is a president’s job! Have you been elected yet?