4um: I have to say, I am very surprised at the number of 4um posters who are considering voting for Obama or any of the Establishment picks....

Title: I have to say, I am very surprised at the number of 4um posters who are considering voting for Obama or any of the Establishment picks....
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 13, 2008
Author: Christine
Post Date: 2008-02-13 19:56:40 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 7612
Comments: 359

By voting for any one of them, you support and lend legitimacy to the fraud. Isn't it time we say no and no more?

A protest vote against the One World Monopolists for a One World Monopolist is by definition insanity...the reason the choice is McHillobama is because the OWM wars must continue until America is gone/of no use to the elites anymore.

How someone could go from supporting Ron Paul to supporting an establishment candidate defies words. It's only more proof that there aren't that many left here worth fighting for, imo. And yet we kept working...

It's time for me to go back into the field now for a long stretch of waking people up that dare to walk in the truth.

Hope to see you all in New Orleans for the north american summit this April. I'm not holding my breath for those who would so cavalierly hop onto a One World Monopolist's bandwagon.

Only if you live in TX or OH and get off your ass and vote for Obama in the primary.

Barack Obama on Gun Control

February 12th, 2007 by Syd

If the Democrats have "gotten the message" on gun control, why is this guy their new "rock star"?

Senator Barak H. Obama, Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator

Position: Keep guns out of inner cities "but inner city violence is also a problem of morality:

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Position: Ban high capacity semiautomatic handguns:

While Obama suggested there may be a need for restrictions on so-called semiautomatic guns, he contends Democrats must steer clear of alienating "lawful" gun owners. "I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I'm a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family," Obama said. "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic Source: Radio Iowa

Positions on Gun Control:

Ban semi-automatics, and impose more restrictions on other types of firearms possession; Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons;
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms;
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to "prevent other states' laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents Source
"I believe we need to renew"not roll back "this common sense gun law," [The Clinton "Assault Weapons" Ban] Source
Proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory. Source
Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel.
"Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis Source

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005 Source

"This seems to be a man [Obama] who is absolutely determined to make the world safe for criminals while making sure that law-abiding citizens have no opportunity to defend themselves "Alan Keyes. Source

Commenting on the VT massacre, Obama said:

"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row", Obama said. "I don't know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn't be hunting Source

Uh, dude, it's not about hunting. Maybe it's about being able to defend yourself from maniacs?

Barak Obama's Voting Record on Gun Control
This page on Gunlaw News includes quotes, voting record and more links to additional resources.

In another place:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.
Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.
Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law. Source

Barak Obama served on the board of the notoriously anti-civil right Joyce Foundation. Source. The Joyce Foundation is the funding source for astroturf anti-gun organizations such at The Gun Guys and The Freedom States Alliance.

On the Washington D.C. handgun ban, Obama said that he:

believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional. Source

Mr. Obama says he's, in it to transform the country No thanks, Barak. Think I'll pass. Your kind of changes I can live without.

christine....I think it's not so much a sell-out as the age old dilemma of voting one's conscience vs voting AGAINST rather than for. I like ron paul, mostly for his anti-war views, but as I have stated here many times, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my candidate was dennis kucinich. that presented a struggle for me - vote for him, knowing he couldn't win, or vote against someone else. just about the time I decided to vote my conscience he dropped out. so much for my conscience.

I want someone to get us out of this stupid and morally wrong war, and all the evil trappings, like torture and the gutting of our rights, that accompany it. I think I am in agreement with most, if not all, here about that. where we digress is that I believe more in social programs than I think many here do. I do a lot of volunteer work and I just can't deny the need. I wish programs to help the poor weren't necessary, but I believe strongly that they are. I hate paying taxes but if I didn't, I would probably pay as much or more to help the needy. do I think government is the best entity to do this? not really, but it's probably the only one with the clout to make it happen. do I think it's efficient? no. I just don't see the alternative.

anyway, I enjoy posting and reading here. I generally run in ultra-liberal circles in *real life* and I love seeing other viewpoints and opening my mind to other opinions, and finding common ground, which I often do.

my original point (I really did have one!) is that if obama is the candidate against mccain, a vote for obama could be a vote *against* 100 years in iraq and a new war in iran. a vote for a third party candidate (I personally like cynthia mckinney) could be a vote that helps mccain, and promotes war. I'm not advocating for obama here. I think he's an awesome speaker but I haven't seen much substance beyond that. he's not my candidate. but he's likely to get my vote if it's against mccain, who I really don't much care for. so that was my point. saying no and no more could feel personally good, but cause unwanted repercussions. sometimes you have to vote AGAINST, not for.

I read recently somewhere (here maybe?) that this whole national election circus is designed to distract people from the elections that really will impact their lives, local elections. those are probably what we all should focus on while the dog and pony show plays out. my 2 cents :)

The silver tongued racist can come personally for my 30-round clips...if he'd like.

I thought of voting for Obama until I heard his foreign policy advisor is Zbignew Brzezinski. When he was Jimmy Carter's NSA advisor, he convinced President Peanut Head to give aid to AFghan rebels PRIOR TO THE 1979 SOVIET INVASION precisely so the Soviets would invade and get bogged down in the occupation of a Muslim country. Zbig set America and the Mideast on the path to hell.

I am a lifelong Republican and voted for Ron Paul in the primary. I voted for Ralph NAder. I have never voted for either Bush father or son because I refuse to vote for anyone from the Bilderberg Society, the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. Zbig was a member of the latter as was George H.W. Bush.

I seriously doubt it ... but in the unlikely event that it is I hope you'll know who to blame.

The 3 front runners; Hitlery, Hussein Obama and Juan McNorthAmericanUnion are all on the same page.

Your two cents was well written and without malice for anyone, I appreciate that.

Forgetting that who is good, better or best, is needed in an effort to clear ones mind.

Assign them letters and accept that they stand for nothing. All being on an equal footing, how would you vote? Does'nt it stand to reason that it makes no difference?

Now back to the real world, realize that a relativly small number of people have preselected who the candidates will be, with that in mind, does it really matter who you vote for????

And you sir are truly an artist at the keyboard and a master of the short, angry, and unedifying comment.

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de EconomÃa Fernando Canales, Secretario de GobernaciÃ³n Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Support ANY of them and you're supporting the establishment's next America-wrecker...

A vote for Rutherford B. Hayes was a vote for peace and tranquility, and it was.

iconoclast, you have to admit it's ironic that your #58 is a short, angry, and unedifying comment :)

While I'm thinking of it, I have some ocean front property in New Mexico I'm looking to unload...

it might matter locally? in my experience most people go and vote every four years for a president, and are surprised to find there are a lot more people and issues to vote for on their ballot that they really had given no thought to at all. maybe that's what they ought to be thinking more about.

Back in the 1940s we had two parties, in the minds of the sheep. BOTH parties offered the candidacy to Eisenhower. Now, if we have two parties, and the sheep think they stand for different things, how come one man could run for either?

That was my first clue that they were one and the same way back then. It makes no difference who you vote for.

I am hoping that Bush just cancels the elections and stays in office. Then nobody has to vote and Bush could pardon Larry Craig.

It was literally impossible for those with soft-cyber chips in their head to imagine evil of the Korozhet.

Candidates for presidency are arranged from the top down. Paul for an example from the bottom up.

Do you prefer a McCain presidency then? Would it be good for your real-estate endeavors?

No, he's the only one that said all along if there really is a terror problem Iran and Pakistan are bigger concerns than Afghanistan and Iraq which are diversions.