As an “ordinary American,” I sincerely question whether Barack Obama has the judgment to be president. His lack of judgment in choosing Eric Holder as a top adviser on his campaign -- the man partly responsible for pardoning terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility for my father’s murder -- serves as primary evidence supporting that judgment.
Holder now leads Obama’s team selecting his running mate for vice president, perhaps Obama’s most important decision during the campaign. Mr. Holder, formerly the No. 2 official in former President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, often is mentioned as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration. This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).
I've been saying, and even his supporters have agreed, that Obama desires the disarmament of the law-abiding American citizenry:
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.
I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?
But we the people are not the only ones he wants to disarm:
Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course -- it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).
Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.
Regarding his desire to eliminate on a practical level the Second Amendment, it has been remarked in response that what's really more important is freedom of speech and that we no longer need the Second to uphold the First in the information age. But don't harbor any illusions that free speech is going to be any more sacred should Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches.
Enter, once again, the Fairness Doctrine. Should Obama be elected, I fully expect the Democrat-controlled Congress to work as hard as it can to put legislation reinstating this odious practice on his desk. And he will most certainly sign it, with a flourish.
It will be enforced against conservative talk radio, essentially destroying the medium. It will be enforced against conservative websites, newspapers, and television network (note the singular). Should it be enforced against liberal radio networks (i.e. NPR), websites (i.e. Daily Kos), newspapers (i.e. the New York Times), and television networks (i.e. all but Fox News), the enforcement will be token in nature with the requirements to fulfill their "obligations" being so easy to meet they are essentially meaningless.
Expect to see the definition of "hate speech" expanded exponentially. Expect to see the word "tolerance" redefined to match what we now call "acceptance" or even "endorsement." Expect to see the nonexistent "right" not to be offended enshrined in regulation.
Don't think it can happen here? Think again. It's already happening in Europe and Canada. We even have Supreme Court Justices who think that European law should inform the decisions of that highest court. If you think it can never happen here, you are a fool. I'd like to think it's unlikely. But I won't make the mistake of believing it to be impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment