RadioGuy's blog: "Reasons not to vote for Obama"

Birthplace, religion, black liberation theology, passport, Pakistan, school expenses and records, house deal, friends, mentors and clients. These are among the questions that despite months of campaigning for the presidency of the United States, thousands of hours in front of reporters and cameras, and hundreds of members of a massive campaign staff, the public still doesn't have fully answered about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Just four years ago, Obama essentially was an unknown state legislator who with the help of the Chicago political system took over a seat in the U.S. Senate. He stated then he was unqualified for national office, but within about two years launched his bid for the White House, knocking off one of the powerhouses of Democratic politics, Sen. Hillary Clinton, in the primaries. The questions, then, abound as he's proposed giving the United Nations hundreds of billions of dollars, promised 95 percent of Americans a tax cut and pledged to pursue environmental campaigns even if coal companies go bankrupt because of that. He's also stated the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped beyond the Constitution and ventured into plans for wealth redistribution, he's told a plumber his goal is just to "spread the wealth," and his wife has said people will need to give up their piece of the pie so that others can have more. All without answers to key questions. Among those issues remaining to be explained fully are his acquaintances in his Chicago political career, who include: Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an associate of Arab-Syrian descent who was a campaign fundraiser for Obama. Obama returned an estimated $225,000 in Rezko-generated campaign contributions since Obama first ran for Illinois state senate in 1995 but Rezko also assisted when Obama bought a $4 million dream property in Hyde Park. Currently Rezko's a convicted federal felon. Professor Edward Said, a Muslim professor at the University of Chicago who was strongly pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab. He promoted Barack and Michelle Obama in the Chicago Arab community. He's deceased. Rashid Khalidi, a Muslim professor at the University of Chicago and Columbia who was funded by the Woods Fund grants approved by Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. Khalidi founded the Arab-American Action Network and is the author of several strongly pro-Paliestinian, anti-Israel books. Ali Abunimah, a Palestian-American Muslim journalist who promoted Obama in his writings and was editor of "The Electronic Intifada" of the Arab American Action Network. He claims Obama has modified his pro-Palestinian position. Nadhmi Auchi, a Muslim Iraqi billionaire who is the cousin of Saddam Hussein. He wired more than $3 million as a "loan" to Mrs. Rezko when the Obamas purchased their dream property. He's the largest private shareholder of Bank BPH in Paris and was the reputed bagman for Saddam Huseein in the "oil for fuel" United Nations scandal. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term in France for his involvement in $100 million in illegal commissions in a scandal involving French oil giant Elf Aquitane. Aihm Alsammarae, a Muslim Iraqi who is the former Iraqi minister of electricity. He contributed $2,500 to the Obama 2008 campaign and is a close friend of Rezko. He ran a scheme to corner the Iraqi cellular phone market and was sprung from an Iraqi prison in 2006 by a mysterious group of masked and heavily armed men who broke him out of prison. He fled to Chicago. Jabir Herert Huhammad, son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, now deceased. Federal prosecutors alleged that Huhammad participated with Abdelhamid Chaib and Rezko in a scheme to use money borrowed from Mutual Bank of Harvey for allegedly fraudulent real estate deals. The bank is owned by Amrish Mahajan, an Indian and CEO of the bank, which lent $3.4 million to Rezko. Abdelhamid "Ali" Chaib, a Muslim who is a long-time Rezko associate who ran Crucial Concessions Food Business set up by Jabir Muhammad, and allegedly was involved in a $1.32 million partner scheme to securitize loans, in part to assist Jabir Herert Huhammad purchase a pizza franchise that questionably added to the Rezko-Jabir Muhammad food concessions business. Obama returned to Chaib in 2004 a $5,000 campaign contribution made in 2003 to Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign after Chaib's indictment in the alleged Crucial Concessions Food fraud scheme was announced. Davis Miner Branhill & Galland. This was the law firm for which Obama worked starting in 1993. While here he represented "Rezmar," a community development firm owned by Tony Rezko and Dan Mahru that bilked low-income community housing projects that borrowed billions for property developments allegedly made fraudently. Eleven of the 30 alleged failed Rezmar properties were in Obama's state senate district. Then also there are the influences on Obama's career, from the one-time writer of a sex novel, Frank Marshall Davis, to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on boards. This is significant since voters have only a few years of Obama's U.S. Senate record on which to judge him, and while a state legislator he voted dozens of times "present" in moves that would not reveal support for or opposition to an issue or position. Among the subjects of those questions are: Frank Marshall Davis, a communist poet and journalist from Chicago who moved to Hawaii. He ghost-wrote a pornographic novel titled "Sexual Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)." He also sold drugs from a Chicago-style hot dog stand while Obama and Obama's grandfather were present, according to allegations made by WND private investigator hired in Hawaii. According to Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Davis was a close confident to Obama, influencing Obama's ideas on radical racial relations. He is deceased. Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael and Frantz Fanon were three radical, anti-white black rage authors Obama tells readers influenced him as a youth. Black-rage attitudes developed by reading these authors influenced both Obama's decision to become a radical community organizer in Chicago and to join Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black liberation theology Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Saul Alinksy. Obama's first job in Chicago was to head the Alinsky-influenced Developing Community Project, Inc. Obama also participated in teaching Alinsky-methods of radical income redistribution in classroom settings. Obama's current policies of "distributing wealth" stem from anti-capitalist attitudes developed in studying Alinsky's radical works, such as his seminal book entitled "Rules for Radicals." Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Pastor for 20 years while Obama was a practicing member of black liberation theology at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama heard anti-white, black-rage theology from Wright. First indication Obama was Christian was when he was baptized in his 30s as a member of United Church of Christ. Obama separated from congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ after Rev. Wright came under criticism, although Obama has yet to reject black liberation theology. William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn. Members of the SDS-affiliated radical Weather Underground in the 1960s and 1970s. Obama began his political career at Ayers' home in 1995 when running for the Illinois state senate. Obama served with Ayers on two Chicago foundations, the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund, giving millions in grants to radicalized programs in Chicago's schools. Obama now claims to disavow Ayers' radical politicals. Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. He's a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government. Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's president Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in Dec. 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Odinga lost the Dec. 2007 presidential election by approximately 233,000 votes, Odinga called for protests which led his Luo tribesmen to murder approximately 1,000 Kikuyu tribesman, displace another 350,000 Kikuyu tribesmen, and destroy 800 churches, while not a single mosque was destroyed. Obama helped negotiate a settlement in which Odinga was appointed co-head-of-state and appointed prime minister to end the violence, even after it became publicly disclosed Odinga signed a letter of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya in return for their votes. Finally, these are the top questions about Obama that remain unanswered: Why won’t Obama allow the public to see the doctor-generated, hospital releseased birth certificate? Was Obama born in Kenya or Hawaii, as his campaign continues to maintain? Was Obama officially adopted by his Muslim stepfather when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, from the ages of approximately 6 to 10 years old? Did Obama ever renounce his U.S. passport? Has Obama ever traveled internationally on a passport other than a U.S. State Department-issued passport? Did Obama travel to Pakistan as a student on a U.S. passport, or on an Indonesian passport? Why did Obama travel to Pakistan, who did he visit there and what was the purpose of the trip? How did Obama pay his tuition at the exclusive high school preparatory Punahou Academy he attended in Hawaii, as well as his college tuition at Occidental in California and at Columbia at New York? How did Obama pay his tuition at Harvard Law School? Why will Obama release none of the school records at any of the schools he attended? Obama’s school records in Indonesia show that at both the Catholic and public school he attended there he was registered as a “Muslim” and an “Indonesian Citizen.” Was Obama ever officially instructed in Islam, even in elementary school? Why has Obama refused to discuss the clients he served when he worked for the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland in Chicago? Was Obama ever compensated by Tony Rezko on the millions Rezko borrowed to redevelop the low-income housing projects in Chicago that Rezko evidently defrauded of the improvements contracted by Obama's firm to be made in the low-income projects involved? Has Obama’s campaign instituted sufficient fiscal controls to determine if any credit card contributions made to his 2008 presidential campaign have come illegally from foreign sources? Have any such foreign contributions been reported to Federal Election Commission authorities and returned, as required by federal law? Has Obama ever renounced Black Liberation Theology as espoused by chief Black Liberation Theologist Dr. James Cone? Has Obama ever renounced Islam? Why have the detailed minutes and funding activities of the Woods Fund and the Annenberg Challenge documents in which William Ayers and Barack Obama participated never been completely released to the public? While no campaign probably ever will put to rest every question voters may have, these are significant in that the next occupant of the White House will be making decisions on the security of the nation and the life and death issues of society, decisions that in all likelihood will be influenced by the beliefs and positions of the president.

This election isn't just about whether America is to be ruled by a political party a little to the right or the left of center. This is a uniquely dangerous election in all of our history. The issue is whether we elect a president and a party that will destroy America as we know it and so weaken America's economy, national defense, national security and foreign policy that others will destroy us first. I have been writing about Sen. Barack Obama several days a week, because I was so appalled at what I found out about him. And the more I investigated his background, associates, collaborators, friends and positions the more frightening the prospect of Sen. Obama in the White House became. Based on everything I've learned, and based on all my instincts and intuition about Sen. Obama and what the mainstream media has been hiding from voters, I'm convinced Sen. Obama would be an unmitigated disaster. I'm convinced if the full truth were known, he would look at least 100 times more dangerous than he does now. These are the factors that make the future look catastrophic if Sen. Obama is elected: 1. We might well say, "Barack, we hardly know you." The mainstream media has not vetted him. We are essentially buying a cat in a bag. Even the wildly liberal Los Angeles Times, almost totally supportive of Sen. Obama, had to run a story saying reporters who cover him don't even know him or what to expect from him. He is usually scripted (and when he is not he makes horrendous mistakes, as when he finally admitted his socialistic objectives). He is kept from the press. He avoids news conferences. His campaign ignores tough questions. That's bad enough, but what we do know about him suggests he's a far left liberal extremist and radical and has flown with a platoon of racists, bigots, America-haters, socialists, anti-capitalists and even terrorists. It is inconceivable that such a man would even be considered for the nomination, let alone win the Democratic Party nomination, and be leading in the polls with the days dwindling down to a precious few. 2. If he wins the White House, it is likely that he will have a Congress controlled by the same radical liberal wing of the Democratic Party that he represents - Sen. Harry Reid in the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and Rep. Nancy Pelosi holding sway in the House also with a supermajority. Already they are talking about taking us down the most radical path in history with more spending bills in the works, with tax hikes of all kinds likely to kill business, with the "spread the wealth" philosophy in the air and with the standard Democratic Party cry of cutting defense spending. They represent the old Democratic Party's approach of endless taxing, spending, expansion of government, limitation of freedom, and a feeble military and foreign policy. But the Obama presidency would take that all to a power of ten, and would add on a stream of radical liberalism that we've never seen before. 3. This also means Sen. Obama, if elected, will be naming perhaps three or more justices to the Supreme Court. And he is already on record as favoring a living constitution - code words for forgetting the intent of the Founding Fathers and legislating from the bench. He has also said he wants judges who empathize with the single mother, the disabled and other vulnerable people. This is his way of saying he wants judges who decide on emotions and sympathy rather than on the rule of law. That means there will be an explosion of far-out radical liberal laws and regulations, coming from all three branches of government. This means that the courts will be able to legislate the far-left liberal agenda Sen. Obama represents. That triumvirate is so far out that they make people like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern look like conservatives. It is important to observe that even Mr. McGovern, former presidential nominee, has taken to the air to oppose proposed legislation backed by Sen. Obama, the Democratic Party, and labor bosses that in effect kills the secret ballot for union elections. Unions will be organized by workers just signing cards, subject to intimidation and harassment, and unprotected by the secret ballot. I've also detailed in earlier columns the anti-Democratic and sometimes even Storm Trooper mentality of Sen. Obama and his campaign. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama and the Democrats are more committed to power and winning elections that obeying and protecting democratic principles. 4. And this barrage of radical liberalism will not just be an updated version of the New Deal or LBJ's Great Society. It will be a new form of radicalism that up to now would not even be dreamed of. We will see "spread the wealth" and "redistributive justice" on the face of legislation rolling through Congress and being signed by the president, without any checks and balances from a minority party, without any veto, and without any filibuster. We will see even more radical ideas that will change the face of America. As Rush Limbaugh reported on Oct. 29, Sen. Obama and the Democrats have big ideas for changing the very face of the nation. Sen. Obama has advocated citizenship for all 12 million of the nation's illegal immigrants. Sen. Obama has said, "... We cannot ... deport all 12 million people. That's why we need to offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to citizenship. That way, we can reconcile our values as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws." The Democrats will rush that citizenship, as they want to permanently tip the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. There has been a fine balance of power between the two parties, which will be ended by 12 million new voters who will favor the Democrats. That's because minorities and immigrants tend to like the big, benevolent, tax-and-spend governments that hand out welfare, benefits and cradle-to-grave security. Dick Morris, in his book Fleeced, points out how Sen. Obama wants to include even illegal immigrants in his universal health-care system. He argues that is sure to overload the system and create such new demand for health care that rationing will be in order. He goes on to point out that means that our senior citizens will probably have to be turned down for the most expensive treatments and surgeries, taking a back seat to younger immigrants and insureds, as their will not be the medical resources to go around. Senior citizens don't fair well in a system applying rationing of medical care. What 47 million new insureds will do to the cost, inflation rate and quality of health care is too frightening and too obvious to even need further explanation. Sen. Obama, by his tax plans, his socialistic schemes, and his new welfare programs, will destroy the health-care system and the economy in short order. Small businesses, subjected to tax increases probably even far in excess of those talked about during the campaign, will be dead as a dodo. The only question is whether we will be thus destroyed by Sen. Obama's domestic policies, or whether we will be first destroyed by his foreign policy that will weaken our national defense, demonstrate weakness too our enemies and invite attacks and the destruction of America. 5. This all is more problematic in view of the demonstrated dishonesty of Sen. Obama in explaining his associations and positions. For more details see my column, "Obama Tells the Greatest Lies Ever Told, Even Before Beings Elected" (Oct. 30,) at www.thebulletin.us. Further adding to the grim picture is the whiff of corruption involving Sen.Obama and his campaign due to both of their connections to ACORN and its furtherance of voter fraud. During the debates, he said his only connection with ACORN was as a lawyer, but he omitted the more than $800,000 his campaign gave to an ACORN subsidiary and his work as an organizer for ACORN. It should also be noted Sen. Obama would have trouble getting a security clearance if he were applying for a federal job, due to questions about his loyalty and reliability flowing from his long standing association and collaboration with terrorists, subversives, radicals and hate-America types. 6. The best demonstration of how Sen. Obama's foreign policy would destroy America comes from Melanie Phillips, who wrote the classic book Londonistan, on the ongoing conquest of the United Kingdom by Islam. She writes in The Spectator, a British publication, that the impact of the financial crisis has obscured the most important issue facing America. She says if Sen. Obama becomes president, "U.S. defenses will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west." Ms. Phillips writes that to understand the choice between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Obama you have to view each man in the round, and get a total picture of each man's world view, philosophy and values. Here is some of Ms. Phillips' reasoning: * "McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America's original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor." * "Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west's fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That's why he believes in 'soft power' - diplomacy, aid, rectifying 'grievances' (thus legitimizing them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America's defenses at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will 'cut investments in unproven missile defense systems'; he will 'not weaponize space'; he will 'slow our development of future combat systems' and he will also 'not develop nuclear weapons,' pledging to seek 'deep cuts' in America's arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling the nuclear deterrent as Russian and China engage in massive military buildups." Sen. McCain knows we have to fight Islamofascism and win that fight. Sen. Obama sees the source of evil in the world as America. He has said, "A lot of evil's been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil." He has said Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat. He quickly reversed himself but that tells you something about his worldview. He said Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist organizations that have murdered Americans and are now doing so, have "legitimate grievances." Ms. Phillips doesn't know what those "legitimate grievances" are and I'd venture to say no other rational man does. To solve the conflict, writes Ms. Phillips, "Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny." Sen. McCain knows better, and also knows Israel is the victim rather than the victimizer. Sen. McCain knows that Israel is surrounded by genocidal enemies that just want to destroy the Jewish state. He also knows Israel is the first line of defense of the free world and that Israel is the first target in the Islamofascists attack on the free world. Sen. Obama's incredible naïveté is demonstrated many times, but no more dramatically than by his willingness to negotiate without preconditions with such genocidal maniacs as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and by his opposition to declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. A move to so declare it passed the Senate by a wide margin. His statements (often quoted in this column) show he believes "Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, and inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf." Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamofascists. This drift of his thinking should surprise no one as he has closely associated with those in the Islamists' camp. He has multiple links to anti-Americans, terrorists, and subversives. The latest such association involves Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for a terrorist organization. Mr. Khalidi, Sen. Obama, and the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn all attended an Israel-bashing party when Mr. Khalidi left Chicago to go to Columbia University. What's worse, most of his foreign policy advisers have that typically radical liberal view of blaming the ills of the world on Israel and America. He brought in a few for cosmetic purposes, such as Dennis Ross, but his initial selection and his circle of collaborators and friends show where he really stands. Ms. Phillips summarizes her views of the meaning of a Sen. Obama presidency for the future of America: "There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can't sleep at night." But we can still vote. And we better consider that vote carefully and not vote for a charismatic demagogue, who gives pretty speeches, but whose reality is the opposite of his rhetoric, who is inexperienced and shows it every time he gets off his teleprompter, who has a razor-thin resume, who has never done anything but run for office and self-promotion, and whose policies, advisers, and philosophy would destroy America as we know it.

I need your rates... I am 1.3 mil from GODFATHER I have auto 11's on from 630am pst Oct 30 - Oct 31 Make Me A GODFATHER "RadioGuy" @ fubar So roll out those 11's Rate all my pics I want to be GODFATHER I have auto 11's on from 630am pst Oct 30 - Oct 31 "RadioGuy" @ fubar

"We, the People," stated that our organization currently had an opening for a chief executive officer. After several dozen candidates, we are left with two – maybe not the two many of us originally wanted, but these are the two that have not been "voted off the island." Only in politics will job candidates dictate to the employer how they will change the organization, versus the organization presenting a clear job description based upon vision of the organization and evaluating the candidate using time-honored techniques such as experience, education, references and certifications. It is interesting to note that a great deal of the drama and rancor might have been avoided had We, the People, utilized hiring techniques well-proven in the business world. Should the hiring process be conducted in a job interview format, it would certainly begin by stating the minimum qualifications for the job, as specified in Article II of the U.S. Constitution: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. Based on that stipulation, the first thing a candidate for president must do is to provide unquestionable proof of meeting the initial requirement. In any other corporate job, an applicant must present a valid proof of identification such as a driver's license or, in this case, a birth certificate. In the 2008 election, this basic qualification still remains clouded for Sen. Obama. The job description itself is detailed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Of those duties, the first would seem to necessitate some level of experience in working with the United States military. Sen. McCain certainly brings experience and a nationwide credibility to that task. Sen. Obama has no experience with the military. The other tasks in that paragraph reflect character and leadership skills. The character and leadership skills of McCain are public knowledge, woven into the fabric of our modern history. The character test of Obama, it seems, suffers under his constant need to defend longtime associations and relationships with people who feel and act hatefully toward the United States … and themselves are of poor character. It seems inappropriate for the first duty of a president to need to exercise his ability to grant reprieves or pardons for his own associates. Other duties of this job are as follows: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. These duties call for a candidate who can effectively build coalitions with at least two-thirds of the Senate. Since the Constitution does not state that the Senate must be composed of a two-thirds majority from one party, the implication is that the president must reach across party lines to build consensus for the appointments and other tasks specified. This means that We, the People, want a team player. Sen. McCain brings a lengthy history of successful bipartisan accomplishments. Sen. Obama's history of bipartisanship is virtually non-existent. In Section 3, the rest of the president's duties are listed: He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. These duties require communication skills, leadership and judgment. Sen. Obama certainly possesses communication skills. He has shown leadership skills in crafting a strong presidential campaign, but his judgment qualifications are called into question by both his own views of military and economic events, as well as his long-time associations with individuals of serious questionable judgment. His less than candid responses to those who questioned his judgment also reflect poor judgment. Using "spin" to paint the truth as something else does not instill confidence in his judgment and character. Barring anything other than a fraudulent birth certificate, both men meet the minimum qualifications needed to serve as president of the United States. So, when evaluating the resume of these two men, the decision rests on the candidates' job experience, team skills and character. In a corporate job interview, references would be called upon to help with the decision-making process. In addition to friends, family and possibly a pastor, other employers and respected community leaders are often sought out for background information as to the candidate. If the friends and pastor of Sen. Obama were sought out, the information gathered may produce less than desirable references. An additional decision-making tool in a corporate job interview is to consider how competitors feel about the candidate. The question should be asked if the enemies of We, the People, are in favor of a particular candidate. Enemy support of a candidate should serve as a rather large red flag regarding the intentions of the candidate and/or the enemy. The best candidate may not have applied for the job, but We, the People, the organization of the United States of America, must make a hiring decision. We, the People, must consider the position, reference the job description serving the organization for more than two centuries, evaluate the experience and qualifications of the candidate – and then choose. If the shareholders of a major corporation choose a less-qualified candidate simply because they hate the former CEO, then emotion picks the candidate. Emotion cannot, must not, have anything to do with the decision. We, the People, are hiring an employee, not a savior. This is not simply our privilege as citizens of this great country. It is our responsibility and sacred trust as members of the greatest organization for democracy in the history of the world. With this responsibility in mind, my decision is clear: I choose John McCain.

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time. Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America. Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life. In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America. America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate. Choose well.

From: Loyal, patriotic citizens of the U.S.A. Message: Please move as soon as possible to one of the following countries and leave us alone: Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea or perhaps Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or Indonesia. Just leave us alone and let us continue our free enterprise, capitalistic nation and pursue the American dream. Your Marxist philosophy is evil and will not work as shown by the communist nations of the world. Perhaps you can be the next dictator of Cuba or Russia.

If you ask most supporters of Sen. Barack Obama why they so fervently want him to be elected president, they will tell you about their deep yearning for "change." And that, of course, has been the theme of the Obama campaign from its inception – "change." It is the word found on nearly all the placards at Obama rallies. It is the word most often cited by the candidate himself. But for all its ubiquity and for all the passion of its advocates, what this change is about is not entirely clear. Of course, Obama himself often has spoken about the overriding need for change from eight years of President George W. Bush's policies. But this is not what he or most of his supporters really mean when they talk about change. In fact, it cannot be. This is easy to show: All candidates for president run on a platform of change from the party in power. If they don't stand for change, why vote for them? George W. Bush wanted a change from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton wanted a change from the first George Bush. And so on back to the first candidate for president to run from a party other than that of the prior president. If change in policies from those of George W. Bush were all Barack Obama meant by change, "change" would not elicit anywhere near the passion it does. Nor would it be the basis of the depth of his appeal to his left-wing supporters. Surely John Kerry wanted as much of a change from George W. Bush in 2004. Yet he did not run on a platform of "change." What Barack Obama is tapping into with the word "change" is nearly eight years of the left's constructing a description of an America that has been made so awful that "change" means changing America, not just changing policies. The truth is that aside from the Iraq war, which is turning out to be quite successful, George W. Bush's policies have not been particularly controversial or even particularly right-wing. But the left has constructed for itself a view of America that, if you subscribe to it, makes radical change imperative. The left, from the New York Times to MoveOn.org, has led itself and others to believe that: 1.)George W. Bush lied America into war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans have been killed in a war waged in order to line the pockets of Vice President Dick Cheney's friends. 2.)The Constitution has been trampled on. 3.)America has become a torturing country. 4.)America's poor have become far more numerous and far more downtrodden. 5.)American troops in Iraq repeatedly have engaged in atrocities against innocent civilians. 6.)The opportunity for economic self-improvement has ceased for most Americans. 7.)Racism is endemic to American society. 8.)Republican rallies are hate-fests. John McCain has run a racist campaign against Barack Obama. 9.)Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, is a religious zealot and an idiot. 10.)Christian fundamentalists are on the verge of taking over America and turning it into a theocracy. 11.)The world is getting closer and closer to catastrophic and irreversible damage caused by human beings; and George W. Bush and energy interests are standing in the way of preventing universal destruction. 12.)America is on the road to fascism. Now, as it happens, none of those things is true. But the left believes them all. That is why radical "change" becomes mandatory – or America will collapse (and the world, too, which is why Barack Obama often mentions changing the world, as well as America). Of course, many Americans who do not consider themselves leftist also will vote for Barack Obama and left-wing Democratic congressional candidates. They do so because they are lifelong Democrats who do not realize how far left their party has strayed and think they still are voting for the party of Truman and JFK; or because they personally benefit from Democratic largesse (e.g., government workers); or because they are active in their unions; or because they have come to believe the media and the Democrats, who have been telling them for almost a decade about how George W. Bush and the Republicans have ruined their country. But as for the left, it lives in a bubble of its making. That is why most leftists live in places where nearly everyone shares their fantasies – bubbles such as Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, the west side of Los Angeles and the most hermetically sealed of the bubbles: universities. They interact almost only with other people who share their fantasy world of America Made Bad. From Karl Marx to today's Democratic Party, the left everywhere has manufactured villains to slay – starting with the bourgeoisie and land owners to today's "special interests" (though not, of course, left-wing special interests, such as labor unions, teachers unions and the trial bar), "the rich," drug companies, oil companies, neocons, evangelical Christians and, of course, the myriad racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes and xenophobes. That's why the left is so passionate about "change." In fact, if I believed America had become what the left believe it has become, I would be, too. But what they believe about America is not true; America remains the greatest country in the world. It needs to be fixed where broken, but not changed. Those who want to change it will make it worse. Perhaps much worse.

Sen. Obama does not believe that we have the right to own a handgun and do not have the right to use force to protect our family. His view of the Second Amendment changes depending on who he is talking to. Sen. Obama does not believe it is in his pay grade to know when life begins. He believes that government is the answer to all problems. His liberal voting record is more socialist than liberal. His voting record is even more socialist than the only socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, his lack of common sense on who are enemies or friends is beyond comprehension. The belief that all we have to do is talk to them and they will love us is naive at best and suicidal at worst (i.e. Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time”). On defense, he has already proclaimed his intention to cut military and weapons programs. This is without even a lick of knowledge on the subject. He proved that on the surge in Iraq. He declared it a failure before it started and without speaking with Gen. David Petraeus. After the surge proved to be a success, Sen. Obama refused to admit that it succeeded. The thing that really got to me was his statement about our troops breaking down doors and bombing innocent civilians. Reminds me of John (take your cameraman to war) Kerry or Congressman John Murtha who convicted our Marines before anyone knew what happened. Open your eyes people, before it's too late!

I read that a second lawsuit has been filed demanding Barack Obama produce evidence that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen in the form of certified copies of birth documents. When I first heard that the birth certificate Obama had posted on his website was suspected of being a forgery, I didn't give it much credence. I mean, who in their right mind would try and pull off something like running for president of the United States on forged documents? It's ridiculous. Surely he didn't live all his life in this country without ever having to produce birth records! I mean, it's ridiculous. Everybody has a birth certificate. Even me a birth certificate is the easiest and quickest (although not the only) form of identification to establish citizenship in order to get a passport. Or a driver's license. Or a Social Security card. My birth certificate doesn't really contain that much private information apart from my "vital" statistics – "vital" in the sense that the information on my birth certificate is certified to be true and correct and establishes who I was born to and when. (Column continues below) The Constitution of the United States sets forth the necessary qualifications for the U.S. presidency. To qualify, a person must be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, aged at least 35, and having been a permanent resident of the United States for the last 14 years. Since they are enumerated by the Constitution, they can only be changed by Constitutional amendment. An unqualified person cannot hold the office, even if elected by the majority of the people. So it is ridiculous – let me repeat it – ridiculous to think that Barack Obama would try to capture the Oval Office if he knew his birth credentials couldn't stand up under scrutiny. Would he? Besides, FactCheck.org says it examined the Obama birth certificate and claims it is genuine. But FactCheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, which links to Bill Ayers, which links to Barack Obama, both of whom held seats on that board – which then calls FactCheck.org's objectivity into question. But surely Barack Obama wouldn't try to run for president knowing he wasn't qualified? Like I said, its a tin-foil-hat question. Still, why in the world would it be necessary for somebody to have to file a LAWSUIT to compel Obama to produce a birth certificate? What is the big deal about providing what millions of us provide on demand whenever the government asks for it? It's only a birth certificate. You should be proud of it. It says you are a natural-born citizen of the greatest country the world has ever known. So, why would Barack Obama file a motion to block discovery on the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg, when all Berg is trying to "discover" is whether or not the candidate running for the presidency is qualified to either run or serve? Obama's campaign has tied up Berg's lawsuit in knots, so Steve Marquis filed the second lawsuit aimed at – this seems odd to even have to say out loud – getting a presidential candidate to produce his birth certificate. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo. It's a birth certificate. He's running for president of the United States! Didn't anybody check? In both cases, Obama is challenging the standing of those who filed the lawsuits – in essence saying he believes it is none of their business. But, not to belabor the point, Obama is running for president of the United States. Every U.S. citizen has "standing" when it comes to ensuring they are voting for a qualified candidate. Both Berg and Marquis are asking only that Obama provide them with evidence of his qualifications for president in the form of certified birth documents. All Obama has to do to make it all go away – especially this close to the election – is let the Hawaii registrar of birth records release one certified copy to be examined by a neutral party. That's all. But he won't. It's baffling. I mean, what can there be to hide?

What if I told you that Barack Obama plans to dismantle our US Military by cutting funding, would you believe me? What if I stated that he plans to dramatically reduce spending on nuclear defense systems, would you call me crazy? Finally, what if I told you that Obama refuses to develop nuclear weapons and plans to eliminate our nuclear weapons arsenal, our last line of defense in desperate times, would you call me a liar? For all the reasons stated above, I refuse to tell you those things about Barack. I am going to let HIM tell you.