Politics

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.

Who is Barack Obama? That seems to be the question that many Americans want to know the answer to. The other question that Americans want answered is: How do we find out who Obama is when he doesn’t answer the questions? Barack has shown the people how to eloquently answer questions without really answering the question. So, how do we know who Obama is? One way is to take a deeper look into who he aligns himself with, what they believe, and how long they have been actively believing those beliefs.

We have taken a little time to observe things that his “spiritual adviser” has said, but we have not spent much time looking into who Rev. Wright has aligned himself with. Remembering that Barack has been a part of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years is very important. Why? When Obama says he looks to someone as a spiritual adviser and also looks at them as an uncle, one might say that who is aligned with that person would also have a profound impact on Barack also.

Rev. Wright has been a long time supporter of and for Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. How much of a supporter? Enough to have been noted as having a helping hand in the organization of the Million Man March (MMM) in October of 1995. Wright has written in great detail describing how it was “a once in a lifetime, amazing experience.” If Rev. Wright was so passionate about the MMM, who could deny that Obama also had a helping hand? Barack was at a time in his life when he was tirelessly working as a community activist trying to make his name known before running for a spot in the U.S. Senate two years later. Was he “advised” by Wright to help in the organizing of the MMM?

Rev. Wright has also accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar al-Qaddafi, considered by many to be America’s arch enemy. Farrakhan considers al-Qaddafi to be a “trusted friend,” “brother,” and “fellow struggler in the cause of liberation for our people.” While it is unsure if Wright holds al-Qaddafi to the same respect that Farrakhan does, it is to say that they are close if they are out traveling and meeting together. Also, Rev. Wright has also been noted as sending a letter to Saddam Hussein, a deceased enemy to America, calling him a “visionary” whose demise would “mean a setback for the goal of unity [among Muslims].”

So what does this say about who Barack Obama is? Simple. He has surrounded himself with people like Wright, Farrakhan, and possibly al-Qaddafi for many, many years. He has used the guidance of these men, even to the effect of writing a book, The Audacity of Hope, based on a sermon that Wright preached. He has a high regard for some of these men, even to a point of modeling his life after them to some extent.

Obama does “March” to the beat of a different drum. One that does not beat for the progression and advancement of America. America needs a VOICE for change, just not the “change” he would bring.

Barack Obama has been under a lot of attention lately, and for good reason. It is critical for Americans to know everything about who they elect. We need to know who they surround themselves with, and also need to know what they believe in order to know what really makes the candidate the candidate they say they are.

One candidate, Obama, has brought back to light the racial tensions that still separate this country. His whole candidacy is built on “change,” and how he would unite America in many ways. Unfortunately, Barack brought a change that this country has been trying to ratify for many years. While Obama has not taken a formal stance on changing the racial issue, Abraham Lincoln was well known for his stance.

Stephen Douglas made the observation that Lincoln “holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality be the Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights, which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.” How profound is it to be known by the people how you stand on an issue? In a time when the nation was needing to be united, one man running for the office of President took a stand and made change happen. How is it, now that the people know what Barack studied on a spiritual level, that he could be elected?

Unity is what this country needs. It needs to be united in supporting the troops and their efforts. It needs to be united in the downsizing of our government, and controlling the way they spend our money. It needs to be united in decreasing taxes. Also, it needs to be united on the race issue instead of supporting the possibility that we may face a civil war on whites versus blacks. That would allow us to take our attention away from the borders, and the security thereof, allowing this country to be taken over by illegals.

Barack Obama is in opposition to all the right “change” America needs. Be a VOICE for the right change.

Today Hillary Clinton gave a speech on “Halting the Housing Crisis.” During her speech, she really tried to drive a point that our economy is in a crisis because of the housing crisis that is plaguing many people across this country. It is unfortunate that so many Americans are losing their homes, however Hillary tries to place the blame on anything but where it should be placed.

“That means acknowledging that our economic crisis is, at its core, a housing crisis, a crises caused in part by unscrupulous mortgage lenders and brokers and unregulated transactions in mortgage-backed securities, in part by speculators who were buying multiple homes to sell for a quick buck and other buyers who didn’t act responsibly.”

To begin by placing the blame on those who were lending the money versus who was signing their name on the mortgage paperwork, is pure stupidity. She does credit some of the blame to the buyers, but spends the majority of it pointing to investors and the lenders.

“Communities of color have been especially hard hit.”

What is being said with this? Is she implying that “communities of color” were being targeted by mortgage companies? Is she playing the race card?

“If you have paid off your home, if you have a fixed rate mortgage with a manageable interest rate, you have siffered the steepest decline on record.”

How is it bad for someone who has paid off their home, or has a manageable fixed rate mortgage the one who is suffering? They are the ones who didn’t put themselves in a precarious situation. They were smart and avoided the whole problem.

“They actually owe more for their mortgages that their homes are worth. So what was once their biggest financial asset is now a financial liability.”

They owe more than what their homes are worth because they borrowed more than they were worth. Just more ingorance on who to blame by Hillary.

“I put forward an aggressive plan for a 90-day moratorium on all subprime foreclosures and a voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages. The response from this administation? A plan that let banks off the hook and left homeowners to fend for themselves.”

Just like her to invite big government in to fix the stupidity of so many people losing their homes. Who is the one who signed the paperwork? The bank or the homeowner? The homeowner got themselves into it, let them figure out a way to remedy it.

Now, on to the point where she throws up!

“Today, I am announcing my four part plan to Protect American Homeowners: A plan to help our families keep their homes and help communities har hit by the housing crisis.

My plan starts with an aggressive new effor to help millions of at-risk families restructure their mortgages and stay in their homes.

The time for action is now – not a month from now, or a year from now – but now. And the reality is that many of our families need more than just basic refinancing.

The Frank-Dodd legislation would move beyond this incremental approach by setting up an auction system for mortgage companies that hold hundreds of thousands of these mortgages. Through this system, these companies could sell mortgages in bulk to banks and other buyers. The buyers would be willing to purchase these mortgages – and restructure them to make them affordable for families – because they know the government will guarantee them once they are refinanced.

But given the severity of today’s housing crisis, simply facilitating this auction process might not be enough to get our economy moving again. That’s why I believe the Federal Housing Administration should also stand ready to be a temorary buyer – to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.

In order to determine whether the approach outlined by Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd is sufficient – or whether we need the government to step in as a purchaser – I am calling on President Bush to appoint an emergency working group on forclosures. That is the second part of my plan.

That’s why I’m proposing an Emergency Working Group on Forclosures.

If it’s decided additional steps are needed, then we should investigate wheter – and how – the Federal Housing Administration or other government entities, of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could buy, restructure and resell underwater mortgages.

The third part of my plan is a new housing stimulus package to provide $30 billion directly to states and localities hard hit by this crisis.

That’s why I’m calling for the creation of a one-time emergency $30 billion fund that would go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis.

This money could be used to purchase forclosed or distressed properties, which cities and states could then resell to low-income families or convert into affordable rental housing.

The Fourth and final part of my plan involves passing new legislation to clarify legal liability for mortgage companies that act to help more borrowers stay in their homes.

Now, some may claim that the plan I’ve outlined today is a ‘bailout.’ They’ll argue that it’s not government’s role to help. Well, that is the same kind of tired rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years now. And I think the American people know better. We’ve had enough of that old ideology. We’re ready for solutions here and now.”

The time for correction is not now like Hillary states. The time was before they signed their paperwork. They should have taken the time to read what they were signing. If they were dumb enough to get themselves into trouble, their solution would have been as simple as refinancing. Having a call for government to step in and fix it is outrageous. Our government is big enough. Now we are trying to elect someone who wants to make it even bigger? She stated that she would come up with more government big spending programs, that she isn’t even sure if they would work. What is her fix for that? More of the same programs. This whole program sounds like a “verbal throw up” of sorts. She could have kept her mouth shut and maybe looked to be a better choice than her opponents, but instead she chose to speak up and look just plain sick. On the brighter side, it does offer a look into what she would be using hard earned tax money for. Bigger government. Is that the answer? NO! Decrease the amount of say that the government has, and put more emphasis on the individual.

Be an individual VOICE against her rhetoric.

When a country that already stands divided, you don’t look for someone to lead this country even further apart. Barack Obama stands to do just that is elected. With all do respect, it is wonderful that the racial divide has tried to be severed with this election. The intention of unifying the country on those terms is grand in itself. The racial divide is one that has been prevalent in this nation since its beginnings. The problem with Obama on this issue, is that he has surrounded himself with radicals. Had he not been a part of what they stand for, he very well could have been the one credited with nullifying the separation of race in America.

It is very unfortunate that so many people would have been a part of election that chose the racist candidate. Imagine, that in the next few years, children read about this event in their history books. Instead of having them read about how this great nation was united as one. All things considered, it is called the UNITED States of America, not the Racially Divided States of America.

With close consideration also, that Obama has risen above so many challenges that one could be faced with. He has now taken this forward moving country, and driven them back to the times before the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That was his message. One of unity. There have been a few people put Obama on the same level with Abraham Lincoln, as it relates to how well he can deliver a speech. That may be true in that case, but Lincoln forged ahead and began a process of unification. A country divided in war, and a country divided in race. That is were they differ. Obama has done nothing but lengthen the strides we have made in the war on race, and has also divided the country with the war we are fighting in Iraq.

There is no question that Obama can well deliver a speech. Many people have. Although, many people do not fill their message with useless junk. Obama did just that when he gave the speech on his church, and also when he talked about the five year anniversary of the war. To go back just a little in comparison with Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln delivered some of the greatest speeches in history. Take a look at his Gettysburg Address. It comprised more in meaning and message in the ten or eleven sentences that comprised it than any of the long winded speeches Barack has given put together.

Abraham Lincoln got things done. He made things happen before running for President, and everything he did was with the idea and hope that it would progress this great nation. What has Obama done? What has Barack done to unite this country? What “CHANGE” has he made? Most of America wants to know what he has done, and not what he would do. Most of America does want change. Does America want what Barack Obama would give it? Some would say yes, until his change was real and then would be the first to rebuke him. It happens all the time in the media.

There comes a time when man reaches the peak of a mountain and realizes there is nowhere to go but down. Barack reached his summit a long time ago and is now on a continual downfall. It seems to say that America is now starting to figure out who and what Barack Obama is and stands for. America does not need to be known worldwide for having a “Black Value System,” but rather “the United States of America Value System.”

Thomas Jefferson said to “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Now that the mass of the people are becoming more informed and educated about Obama, it is time to ensure that the liberty of this great country is preserved and not ripped apart.

Stand for a brighter future and be a VOICE for what this nation needs.

In light of the recent events troubling the Obama campaign, it would only fit that a former President would want to make a few comments. Abraham Lincoln is regarded as one of, if not the greatest of all time, Presidents that has ever lead this country. A man who came from absolutely nothing and having little education, to holding the countries highest position and being self-taught in law, astronomy, grammar, chemistry, and arithmetic offers his opinion on the likes of Barack Obama.

“I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.”

With the recent public discovery that Obama has aligned himself with radical black supremacists like Rev. Wright and Al Sharpton, it is doing nothing but driving this country backwards to a time filled with hate and animosity. It seems as no surprise that Lincoln would say that Barack is no wiser for harboring these ideas than those of the 50’s and 60’s.

“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.”

It is pretty obvious that Barack doesn’t have a great memory. Having been a member of his church for 20 years, is is almost impossible to not remember a single controversial remark. On top of that, he has been caught in his web of lies prior to and during his address to the nation concerning Rev. Wright and things he has said.

“The time comes upon every public man when it is best for him to keep his lips closed.”

Abraham Lincoln said it best when he made that statement.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

This is wonderful council given by the great Lincoln that Obama should have known. Who’s to say that if he knew this years and years ago, he wouldn’t be in the predicament he is in now. Barack tried to fool all the people, and it didn’t work!

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

This country will fail if we falter and elect an individual like Barack Obama. We cannot sit idle and let people like this try to destroy what so many people have worked so hard for.

Stand up and be a VOICE like Abraham Lincoln did.