Currently there is much debate circling around the media about the fact that Sarah Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant. While this is not a rumor, and is very much a truth, what is more important is how the campaign and the Palin family is handling this issue.
Much should be said about how this is being handled. The Palin family didn’t skirt the issue, but rather made a statement that it was not a rumor and announced the truth behind it. This says much about what and who this woman is. It furthers her Conservative idealistic views about abortion and family. She has made it a fact that she is in opposition about abortion, having made the decision for herself. Being a mother of five, one of which has Downs Syndrome, she has made family a top priority.
With those five children, the oldest being 19 and the youngest at 4 months, family has always been a top priority. When asked about her youngest having Downs Syndrome, she rejects sympathy citing him as a gift from God as are all her children, and her soon to be grandchild. Hearing Sarah Palin refer to God, also brings to light that she is a faith-based person and a bible-hugging Christian. What else does being a bible-hugging Christian believe? They believe that the issue over global warming is not caused by humans and knows that it is just the life cycle of Earth. They oppose stem cell research. They oppose same-sex marriage believing that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Although these are all hot topics that Conservatives hold to, there are many more stances that are brought up at debate time namely the economy, Constitutional rights, and the war. Constitutionally, Palin supports the second amendment for the right to bear arms. She supports it so much, that she is a life long member to the National Rifle Association (NRA). In support of the war, she has traveled overseas to visit the troops in the battlefield and the hospitals in which many of them are recovering from defending our freedom. Also, her oldest son enlisted in the U.S. Army to protect our freedoms.
With regards to Sarah’s stance on the economy, she has a proven record of cutting taxes and making budget cuts. So much so, that she even reduced her own salary.
Another issue that many people will question is where Palin stands on energy. Tirelessly, she has promoted energy independence and supports the search of resources in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
So, what does all this mean? The argument for Sarah Palin is great. Sarah Palin is great. She is a great person, woman, wife, mother, and soon-to-be grandmother. She will also be an excellent Vice President for John McCain and America.
Here are some interesting facts from Barack Obama’s speech given at the Democratic Convention held in Denver, CO on August 28, 2008.
The speech was titled The American Promise.
It took around 3 minutes of “Thank You” to start the speech.
Promise was used an astounding 26 times.
President Bush was referred to 8 times.
John McCain was named 22 times.
President Bush was brought up two times before mentioning is opponent, John McCain!
So, what is the definitive meaning for promise? Promise can be defined as a proclamation that something will or will not be done for future excellence or achievement. If only Barack understood that is what makes being an American so great. Every American already strives for future excellence. We don’t need empty rhetoric to tell us that!
In future parts, we will take an even deeper look at Obama’s speech.
Ask anybody what Barack Obama stands for and they will say, “change.” Change is good, it helps you grow. However, ask those same people to explain where he stands on immigration, foreign policy, taxes, Iraq, welfare reform, the economy, and many other hot topics and they don’t know. It is very difficult to understand what he is saying at times, but Barack finally took the time and explained all these things and more, but with one exception. He left out ALL the rhetoric! Take a listen:
In yet another recent speech given by the Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, he discussed his “plan” to help the middle-class succeed. So, just how does he propose to help advance the middle-class?
“As we help families deal with rising costs, we also have to help those families who find themselves mired in debt. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis because, once again, we failed to establish basic rules and oversight to protect consumers from predatory lending.
To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements; ban rate hikes on debt you already had; and ban interest charges on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but you should pay what’s fair, not just what fattens profits for some credit card company and they can get away with.”
What does Barack want? He wants to regulate companies as to the rates they charge to lend you money. He wants to regulate companies via the government?
“The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I’m President, we’ll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance.”
The plain and simple fact that no one should have to file for bankruptcy is where we should be working towards. Not giving people a second chance. When the majority of the people filing for bankruptcy are doing it for no other reason that to get what they couldn’t afford without any penalty, why then should we be working towards laws that give them a second chance rather than working to make the laws much more difficult?
“But even as we take these steps, we also know that it’s not enough to just get families back on their feet. We need to help hardworking families get ahead. We need to help the middle-class succeed because that’s when our economy succeeds. That’s why the third step in my agenda is to give families the help they need to build that nest egg and provide a better life for their children.
To make saving easier, we’ll automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that stays with you from job to job. And for working families who earn under$75,000, we will start that nest egg for you by matching 50 percent of the first $1,000 you save and depositing it directly into your account.”
Obama wants to force workers into pension plans, not letting that worker choose for themselves. Also, he wants the government to give you money to start a savings account. Where would he get the money to do this? Simple. Taking from those who he increases the taxes on, and redistributing it.
“To make a college education affordable for every American family, I’ll make this promise to every student – your country will offer you $4,000 and year of tuition if you offer your country community or national service when you graduate.”
Where would he get the money to do this? Simple. Taking from those who he increases the taxes on, and redistributing it.
“You know, the Americans I’ve met over the last sixteen months in town halls, and living rooms; on farms and front porches – they may come from differnt places and have different backgrounds, but they hold common hopes and dream the same simple dreams. They know government can’t solve all their problems, and they don’t expect it to. They believe in personal responsibility, and hard work, and self-reliance. They don’t like seeing their tax dollars wasted.”
That’s right, those are his words from the same speech. He offers many different things that he will do to redistribute tax money to those who have problems to try to solve them, even though he knows that “the Americans he’s met” know that the “government can’t solve all their problems.” The personal responsibility of Americans would be thrown out by electing Barack Obama because of the programs he would impose. The wasted tax dollars, would be redistributed to others just like in a communist state. Self-reliance, out the door while waiting for your next check from the government.
Closing on Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric: “CHANGE.”
After all, change is all you will have if Obama is elected.
Recently, Barack Obama visited Independence, MO. to give a speech on patriotism. Forgetting what patriotism really is, Obama managed to ramble on about items that made no reference to being a patriot. What was Obama trying to sell with this speech? Rhetoric, and more rhetoric.
One thing Obama forgot to discuss about patriotism, was a definition of what patriotism is. Patriotism can be defined as the love and devotion to one’s country and the willingness to sacrifice for it. Plain and simple. When Obama did talk about those who make sacrifices, he shamelessly made the change to his political stance with more rhetoric.
“We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.
For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.”
What was being sold here? Empty campaign talk? H. L. Mencken once said that “In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell.” So, what was the point of giving this speech? Was it another stunt at speaking about campaign policy?
“And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”
Barack Obama says that “no one should ever devalue that service,” but he wants to devalue their service by doing an immediate pull-out from Iraq. Those brave men and women in our Armed Services have fought tirelessly, and the it would be a great devalue to all that they have accomplished if they were pulled out too soon. To quote Howard Thurman when he said, “During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism.”
“In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.”
Once again, Obama starts out okay with this statement followed sharply with more rhetoric. Does Barack’s heart swell with pride at the sight of our flag? Has he ever shed a tear while Taps is played for a fallen brother or sister in arms? Does Barack Obama really know what patriotism is?
The empty rhetoric of Barack Obama means nothing in comparison to true patriotism.
Here at The Stafford Voice, we wish to know your opinion of the high fuel costs. This will be a comment driven topic, with the idea that ALL who comment will keep it clean.
What is your opinion of the high fuel costs?
What are you paying per gallon?
What, if anything, are you doing to help?
What do you think would help to bring the costs down?
Remember to keep your comments clean, and please do not use profanity. This post is driven by your comments, so please offer your input.
Barack Obama has been running on how he would bring “change” if elected to President of the United States of America, but not many people understand the type of “change” he would bring. Also, when one says that history has a tendency to repeat itself, how true they may be. Many countries of time past, have prospered and then failed due to the leadership of that country. Many people, foreign and American, offer their ideas and views as to how to bring change to help, but none more serious than that “change” that is being brought forth by the Democratic Parties hope in Obama.
The influence of “change” has been in place for many years in America, and whose influence has been laid out even earlier from foreign leaders. One idea from abroad, ‘The Communist Manifesto’, has been the most influential toward what plan was laid out before Congress in 1963. You read that correct. A plan, derived from the Marxist ‘Communist Manifesto’, was delivered before Congress in 1963 by Cleon Skousen, which he titled “The Naked Communist”. Some of the key points that Skousen presented are:
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set us as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture– education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
What does all that mean? It may help to define socialism and communism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines communism as a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. They define socialism as any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Another striking similarity between the two is that their fundamental strategy for the working class is to have them struggle. Their way of influencing the working class is to present themselves as being one themselves.
Going back to the previous question, what does all this mean? Taking a look at a few of the points a little further, we find that the Democratic Party is aligned with furthering their movement to defeating the very society that America was founded on. Freedom.
Permitting free trade between all nations? NAFTA? How has that been working for us lately?
Provide American aid to all nations? America is having a hard enough time feeding all of itself.
Promote the UN as . . . a one-world government with its own independent armed forces? Capture one of the political parties in the United States? In the program of the Communist Party USA, they state:
The other tendency to emerge is that largely associated with the national Democratic Party leadership. It is willing to make some concessions to the Democratic Party’s mass base among labor and the nationally oppressed and women in order to ameliorate social discontent. It generally advocates a less unilateral, less arrogant policy in relation to both the world and domestic social forces. In pursuit of their particular imperialist interests, this sector of transnational capital and its political representatives are significantly more reluctant to use military force until other means are exhausted. They see a greater role for the United Nations and other international bodies. Domestically they see a continued need for economic regulation and social welfare programs to keep social peace and avoid the extremes of destructive capitalist competitiveness.
They openly state that they are “willing to make some concessions to the Democratic Party.” Also, in times past and present, the Democratic Party has pressed for stronger ties with the UN, and that the UN have a “greater role.” So, what’s with the Democratic Party? Why them? The Communist Party USA says:
These general divisions in the capitalist class contain significant opportunities for working class and progressive forces. On some issues, the more moderate, more realistic sections of the capitalist class and its political operatives move in parallel with the people’s movements as important though temporary allies. They can be pressured to adopt a more progressive stance by the strength of the people’s movements and mass sentiment. The Democratic Party is not only its national leadership; it has been the main mechanism used by African American and Latino communities to gain representation, as well as the main mechanism used to elect labor, progressive, and even Left activists to public office, especially at the local level. There exists an internal struggle within the Democratic Party between centrist forces who collaborate with the right wing, and centrist forces opposed to the right wing. Those opposed to the right wing are often willing to align with progressive elements that seek to defeat the program of the ultra-right. There are struggles within both the Democratic Party and within the labor and people’s movements that are reflective of the overall struggle to gain political independence from corporate dominance. Any serious strategy that hopes to win millions of people to a more advanced political program must relate to these struggles.
Using African American and Latino communities to gain political independence to win millions of people, and to relate to their struggles. That seems to sum up the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama.
Another goal that was discussed was the principle of “separation of church and state.” How insane is it to discuss the idea of separation of church and state. It’s one principle that this nation was founded on. But, the Communist Party USA has a different idea. One being a “full restoration and expansion of the Bill of Rights and all democratic rights; the complete separation of church and state. It seems as no wonder why Obama doesn’t see anything wrong with his churches views and his former pastor, the controversial Rev. Wright.
What about them saying that the government should have central control over things such as education, welfare programs, and health care? Again, taking another look at the Communist Party USA program that they subsection under an “Anti-Monopoly Program,” they say:
Full funding for education, affordable housing programs, day care, Social Security, a universal health care program, youth job training and recreation programs, and cultural programs.
At what point does it sound good for the majority of the American people to have the government make all the choices for your health care or for your education? Has the “No Child Left Behind Act” worked? Many parents will say that it has driven the educational standards of America backwards.
Also in their “Anti-Monopoly Program,” they make mention that the military budget should be cut drastically to an all time low. Barack Obama is open about how much he would slash military spending. It goes to show, again, that the Communistic ways of the Democratic Socialist Party would want to strengthen the UN and their idea of a world controlled military.
What else does the Communist Party USA say about what they want for America?
Socialism will guarantee the right to vote, to health care, to a job at a living wage, to decent housing. Socialism would bring social ownership to the “commanding heights” of the economy—the major industrial firms, the transnational corporations, banks and other financial institutions, the energy industry, much of the national distribution system, and the health care system—and run them as public utilities, with publicly elected boards, responsible to and for the public good, and for long-term economic and environmental sustainability. Public programs for free health care, free education through the college level, combating illiteracy, ending malnutrition, and guaranteeing jobs would be built.
But, just how do they propose to fund all these programs and ideas? With an elaborate tax system that taxes every hard working-class citizen to the max putting even fore strain on them. Although, isn’t that their goal, to have control over all and forcing the working class to struggle?
Everything that America, and her citizens, have worked so hard for is in threat by electing the Democratic Party hopeful. Barack Obama is not his own person, but is a puppet for some extremist organizations that want nothing more than to see America fail. Is that the “change” that America needs?
Many times it has been said that the Democratic candidate will be known before they go to the convention. What does Clinton know that the rest of America doesn’t know? There have been polls conducted that show she is more electable than Obama. Many of those that voted for Clinton said that if she doesn’t get the nomination, they will be voting for McCain. Obama voters have said the same, however, there is a large amount of people that are not getting to be a part of this process. Those who are in Florida and Michigan. There has to be something done about those two states. Millions of people have spoken and have voted for Clinton. Taking a look at the popular vote, if included in that total would be those two states, Clinton would be ahead. The argument from the Obama camp is that he didn’t get to campaign or spend any money in either of those states. However, his name was on the ballot in Florida, a state that WIDELY chose Clinton.
Is Clinton holding out on the idea that the votes in Florida and Michigan will be counted?
Does Clinton know the BIG bombshell that will ultimately be the downfall of Obama?
What does Clinton know about the “behind the scenes” of the Democratic Party that the rest of America doesn’t know?
Only Clinton herself can answer these questions, and it is doubtful that she will.
As a presidential candidate, one would think that you should be able to gain the highest top secret clearance one could gain. This is a great problem that may plague Barack Obama.
Like everything that involves our government, there are procedures. One of those procedures, but not limited to, is being questioned before qualifying to fill out the standard background check form, SF86. One of those questions that would be asked to Obama would be:
“Have you ever sold any illegal drugs for profit?”
We know that Barack has openly admitted to using drugs, but we don’t know if he has sold them. One could assume that during one’s questionable teenage years, in which he claims to have had a tough life, he could have sold them. Which leads us to look at another question that would be brought to Obama. And that being:
“Have you used any illegal drugs (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991), other than marijuana, within the past ten years, or engaged in more than minimal experimentation in your lifetime?”
Once again, Barack’s drug use comes into play, having admitted to more than just recreational use of more than marijuana. Having spent time explaining it in detail, in a book that he has written, saying that he has used marijuana and “maybe a little blow(cocaine).” Also saying that he didn’t try heroin because he didn’t like the person who was trying to sell it to him. That sounds like a little more than “minimal experimentation.”
As stated earlier, these are just some of the questions asked before one even begins to fill out the standard form for FBI background checks, the SF86. If Obama was able to make it past the preliminary questions, take a look at some of the questions he would face in the SF86.
- People who know you well
- Your relatives and associates
- Your foreign activities:
- – Do you have any foreign property, business connections, or financial interests?
- – Have you ever had any contact with a foreign government, its establishments (embassies or consulates), or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S., other than on official U.S. Government business?
- – Explain if you answered yes to any of those questions.
- Foreign countries you have visited
- Your association record
- – Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?
- – Explain if you answered yes to that question.
While we don’t know exactly how Barack Obama would answer these questions, we do know that they will be asked if he were to be elected President. When that time comes, one would ask if the FBI would be able to legitimately grant him the highest level of top secret needed to be President of the United States.
We have taken a small look at Barack and his history. We have taken a look at what it would take to achieve a top secret clearance granted by the FBI. We only hope that people will start to realize that Obama would bring a lot of change. A change that would bring total disgrace to this great nation. Call upon your VOICE and choose the right candidate, and not one that cannot even have a top secret clearance.