Some people claim that we don’t know enough about Barack Hussein Obama to really know what he stands for and what he might do as President, assuming he makes a run for the Presidency. (In 2008, 2012 or whenever.) The fact is that we have more than enough data to fully understand what he would be like as President. He would be a typical far Left Liberal, who talks like he’s about faith, but really flip flops to the Liberal side on issues Americans care about most.
Obama was well exposed over 2 years ago, when he had to debate a man who takes strong stands on his faith. That man was none other than Alan Keyes. While we all knew Keyes would probably lose and even Keyes knew it himself, he set Obama up with well targeted statements and has preserved it all on his web site. Good for us Mr. Keyes did, because I am going to give you a plethora of examples from Obama’s own statements during those debates. To prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Obama is a far Left Liberal who actually rejects more teachings of the Christian faith than he supports. And when Obama is presented with the true teachings of the faith he claims to represent he rejects it!
I feel this was all best shown during the last 2 of the 3 debates between Alan Keyes and Barack Hussein Obama. Those were the debates held on 10/21/2004 (video, transcript) and 10/26/2006 (video, transcript).
Let’s start with your right to bear arms. Something many confuse with you having the right to simply hunt deer. They ignore the need for people to be able to defend themselves not only from thieves, but also from their own government should it turn against the people. Here’s what Obama would do as your President. (From the 10/21/2006 debate.)
OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. Mr. Keyes, for example, does not believe in common gun safety laws like the assault weapons bill.
Keep in mind it has expired and the promised blood in the streets has not yet occurred. Obama continues:
And the fact of the matter is, is that Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits, that I can tell, with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, and that is to kill people, unless you’re seeing a lot of deer out there wearing bullet-proof vests, then there is no purpose for many of the guns.
I think it is a scandal that this president did not force a renewal of this assault weapons ban.
Deer need to be wearing bullet proof vests before Obama would allow you to own a firearm that might kill someone. Never mind all the people who have killed criminals with guns because their lives were in danger. This nut does not understand that the right to bear arms is an inherit right to posses a weapon that was made for killing someone if necessary.
Keyes offered a good response.
KEYES: I think one of the great problems is that the Assault Weapons Ban deals with a fictional distinction. You have guns that are exactly the same guns as are banned, in function, that were banned because of the way they look. And you know, that’s the whole truth of this policy: it’s to make politicians look as if they are doing something, when in point of fact, they are doing nothing.
The answer to crime is not gun control, it is law enforcement and self-control. And when we remember that, we will see the rates of crime go down in Chicago, and everywhere else.
Obama tried to claim that gang bangers would start using “assault weapons” to shoot into crowds of people. I can’t say we’ve seen that given gang bangers don’t get their guns via walking into a gun shop and buying them. Keyes was able to point out that when you talk about gangs Obama is not the man who will stop them.
Even in the last answer just now, about gang violence and shooting into a crowd, sounded great and very emotional. The only problem is that, in his voting record, when they went to do something about that gang violence by actually adding penalties that would pay especial attention to those crimes that were committed in the course of gang violence, and when they had legislation on the table that would be aimed at keeping people who were coming out of jail from consorting again with those who are part of gangs, Senator Obama voted against it.
And when you had a law that would penalize folks who, especially, who were going to discharge firearms within a certain number of feet of a school–again, aimed at trying to minimize that kind of gang violence–he voted against it.
He likes to go after the inanimate objects, as if they’re the ones causing the problem. But, when you have legislation that intends to deal with the people who are, in fact, the source of the danger and the problem, he backs away, as if to tell us that we must worship the things, and forget the people.
But that’s one of the problems with the view he takes toward everything. He believes we can control violence by controlling things.
I think we must educate the heart and soul of people, so that they will control themselves. That is the key.
Did you know Obama wants to start sex education in kindergarten? Here’s his excuse:
We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate.
Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean.
And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergartners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.
America’s gay lobby has plenty of content they claim is “age appropriate” for kindergarteners. How would you like your kids to hear it via government mandate? Obama claims to wish to protect children, but at that age the only adults that should be talking about appropriate places to touch are the child’s parents. It’s simply a job government should not even attempt to do. Remember, Obama is a friend of the gay lobby. So don’t go thinking I’m trying to make something up when I say Obama would end up with your kids learning about sex from folks that advance the pro-gay agenda.
Obama claims he voted against porn filters in schools because of reports some of the filters were not working properly.
In the school setting, there was information that, potentially, they could not access, such as information about breast cancer, and the filters were not working effectively, which is why there was a broad opposition from a lot of quarters, and not just from me.
Why didn’t Obama vote for the filters then and allow them to be updated in future updates? If some kid needs to learn about breast cancer there are plenty of books available on that subject. It’s not the kind of thing that requires internet access to research.
Obama likes to talk about wanting children to have health care, but he makes an exception when the child is in the womb. Then he’s got no problem with the government forcing states to allow people to kill their own babies. With Obama you’re supposed to only see the babies he tells you to see and ignore the babies in the dumpsters of abortion mills.
Obama feels that targeting gang members with a mandatory death sentence when they kill a cop is somehow unconstitutionally targeting gang members. Keyes was able to quickly point out Obama’s hypocrisy in this regard.
KEYES: I think it’s kind of odd–I’m willing to wager, we could here, that Senator Obama would not think it superfluous to have what’s called “hate crimes legislation” that adds a special animus to certain acts of violence, already penalized under the law, but, in order to convey against those particular acts a certain special category of opprobrium from the society.
Whether one supports that idea or not, it is clear that you don’t look upon it as superfluous, because the law provides an extra message that is aimed at discouraging certain particularly harmful things to the society and the community. And that, of course, was the purpose.
If you have communities that are particularly threatened by gang violence, and you want to send a particular message to those who are drawn into that process of violence through their association with gangs, to make it less attractive, then you would use the law to send that message. And, as with hate crimes legislation, it’s not superfluous. It is, in fact, one of the functions of the law, and by using that function, you are also sending–in the case of the police officers in dangerous places, it is always the case that these rights are subject to prudential judgments, and that police officers can be put under the burden of making reasonable judgments about what is or is not necessary to safeguard their lives.
Obama claims to be a Christian, but look what happens when someone shares with Obama what Jesus says about some issues he supports. This was in response to Obama saying if he met Jesus he’d first want to ask if he was “going up” or “going down”.
KEYES: But of course, the question involved here wasn’t people of different faiths, but people who profess the same faith, and that faith is faith in Jesus Christ. And the question, I think, that I would pose to the Lord is not whether I’m “going up” or “going down.” I want to know where He stands, so that I may follow Him.
I want to know where He stands with respect to the will of the Father, to Whom He looks. And on these questions, like abortion, He says the taking of innocent life is an abomination.
On these questions, like traditional marriage, He says He created us male and female, and that the wrong use of the body in this way is, again, as the Scripture says, an abomination. He defined marriage not as the union of man and man, or woman and woman, but as man and woman, and “the two become one flesh”–something that is possible only in the course of procreation.
So, when I look at where Christ stands, and I look at where Senator Obama stands, based upon that record of Christ’s understanding which we acknowledge as Christians to be the true record, I say, “Well, Christ is over here. Senator Obama’s over there. The two don’t look the same.”
And that means that I’m not thinking about Alan Keyes. I am thinking about the Lord.
And to say I don’t have the right to do that means that you’re trying to suggest that my faith-shaped conscience has no place in our politics. And yet, if I go into the voting booth or into public life without my faith-shaped conscience, then I have no conscience.
For, the Lord said I must love Him with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. There’s nothing left over. Without faith, there’s just a faith-shaped void where the conscience ought to be.
OBAMA: I don’t need Mr. Keyes lecturing me about Christianity.
Obama fails to address the facts given and quickly claims he does not wish to be lectured. This is because Obama embraces a faith that harbors Liberal doctrine, not the Word of the Lord.
In their debate on 10/26/2006, Obama said that when China devalues their currency by 40% the US should complain to the World Trade Organization. Obama is against the idea of setting special tariffs against nations that fail to trade on fair terms. Keyes was able to provide an appropriate response.
KEYES: –certain kinds of tariffs are quite allowable, in order to achieve greater balance of trade.
We need to creatively use the tools that are available to us. Saying we should rely on these multilateral organizations, where the deck is stacked against us, which can circumvent what ought to be the proper judgment of our own legislators whom we elect, responsible to us, and we should rely on their judgment to be fair to us, when we’ve seen what they do to the United States in other respects?
I think we have to keep sovereign control of our own economic destiny. And “globalism” should not imply that we are going to dilute the sovereignty of the United States when it comes to defending our manufacturing base, and when it comes, by the way, to winning a better deal for our farmers. The notion that they have been getting something wonderful out of this “free trade” nonsense is absurd.
Regarding school choice, there was an exchange that you simply have to read to believe. It starts with the moderator Phil Ponce posing a question to Obama.
PONCE: Thank you. Let’s move to the question of education. Mr. Obama, you’ve said that you consider education as the most important civil rights issue facing America today. Currently, your children are in private schools. If you’re elected to the Senate, will you send them to public schools?
OBAMA: Well, my children currently go to the lab school at the University of Chicago where I teach, and my wife works, and we get a good deal for it. But, so–
OBAMA: –it depends on whether we move or not. And that, obviously, hinges on the election and what’s gonna happen. We’re gonna choose the best possible education for our children, as I suspect all parents are gonna try to do. And that’s part of the reason why, consistently when I’ve been in the state legislature, I’ve tried to promote those kinds of reforms that would improve what I think is an inadequate performance by too many public schools, all across the state.
PONCE: But you’re against vouchers, as a senator.
OBAMA: I am.
PONCE: You have the means, to have a choice–
PONCE: –for your children. What about the families that don’t have the means? Is it fair for them–
OBAMA: What they–no–
PONCE: –not to have a choice?
OBAMA: –what they need is more money in their pockets.
And that’s why I’ve supported programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, that provides tax relief to low-income families, so that they can use that money any way that they want, including sending their kids into private schools.
PONCE: Is that enough of a help, Mr. Keyes?
KEYES: I’m sorry, y’all–I do not see the day when every American family is going to be employed by the University of Chicago so they, too, can have a choice.
KEYES: I think that we had better get there a little sooner than that. And I think that the way we get there sooner than that, is to let the money we spend on education follow the choice of the parents, so every family in Illinois–whether they are rich or poor–will be able to have the same scope to do what they think is best for their children.
I do not understand why we should believe it right to imprison the parents of people with less means in failing public schools, when, and then–oh! “I’ll let them have a little more money, so they can go on paying twice for education”? Paying with the taxes, and paying as well with money they have to dig into their pocket to earn?
Obama makes a good living and knows he is getting a “good deal”, but openly acknowledges he refuses to give a deal to parents in the form of school choice vouchers. Instead he wants to give people back money after they’ve been taxed twice. I don’t know if Obama ever pulled his kids from that private school, but every bio I read mentions his family lives in Illinois. Which means they probably still attend a private school on that “good deal”, while he refuses to make it easier for other parents to get a good deal. (Even if his kids went to public school in DC they’d be sure to attend a school unlike the school in your neighborhood.)
Obama is against privatizing even a part of social security, for people to make their own choices with their money. He’s also against drilling in Alaska, which leaves America having to buy more oil from nations that might be our enemies.
Obama says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but votes against efforts to define marriage as such. Here in TN every county in the state had a majority vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Similar amendments have been passing in various states across the nation. While we vote what we believe, Obama claims to believe one thing, but vote another. Which in effect makes Obama someone against true marriage given his vote. Doesn’t Obama know he can’t serve 2 masters?
Matthew 6:24 (New King James Version)
I see Obama’s claims of faith as nothing more than a politically postured fraud. He’s a social Christian. Someone who attends church for the chance to hear a nice song and maybe be asked to take a picture, but when it comes to following the Word he does not want to hear that “lecture”.
Obama said he was against the Bush amnesty for illegals plan, but voted for the plan Bush wanted in the US Senate!!! Here’s Obama during the 10/26/2004 debate.
PONCE: Gentlemen, at this point, I’d like to ask you to give me one or two sentence answers on the following questions. Mr. Obama, do you support either amnesty for undocumented workers, or a form of a guest-worker program? Do you support either of those?
OBAMA: Not in its current form. I think we have to secure our borders. We have to have employer sanctions in place, and if we had those two things in place, then I think setting up a pathway or regularized status for undocumented workers is appropriate.
But once in the Senate Obama voted for the big amnesty plan. It does not secure our borders. Obama is a Liberal flip-flopper.
Obama also mentioned during the 10/26/2004 debate that he wants to eliminate the electoral college. Mob rule anyone?
During those debates Alan Keyes kept up a blog called The Daily Obamanation. It details things about Obama that are worth checking out.
Here’s an example:
Obamanation Debate Fact Check (10-22-2004)
So yes we know what an Obama Presidency would be, a pretty horrible thing!
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.322 seconds