I got this email today... What do you think?

devil dog

Active Member
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
 

devil dog

Active Member
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time - every time
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy,. I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate.
 

devil dog

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2626819
sry, but i would have just deleted it or reported it as spam...
Well this Ken Blackwell is a Columnist for the New York Sun... So do you think it is fact? well part of it

I will say this I'm not a fan of any Democrats so with that said

Could part of this be true how could he get this far?
 
T

tizzo

Guest
To tell you the truth, ANY e-mail that I ever get with a politicians name on it, I delete.
At first I was reading them, then I started researching them and they were full of flat out blatant lies. I sent my arguments to the person who kept sending me the emails, but it didn't matter, she believed the original email. (sorry mom), but those emails prey on peoples ignorance.
I didn't read yours, cause I scanned and saw the word obama. That word and email are a red flag that it's full of lies.
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I am a fan of researching and so far every email I got was wrong.
Oh I did see the "antichrist" part, FWIW, Suddam was the antichrist a few years ago.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Most is true
Sen Obama is the most liberal senator
He is a socialist
He will raise taxes
He will weaken the military ( "I will slow development of new combat systems")
He will gain gov't control of healthcare
As to the anti-Christ issue, I don't think so, but I do not want a socialist/communist ( listen to his recent speech on collectivism)heading a country founded on liberty and a small weak federal gov't.
 
J

jrthomas40

Guest
im not for anyone weakening the armed forces of the military and national security to me that is an invite for terrorist...i dont think taxes should be raised but they should be evenly distributed because it is the more you own the more tax break you get....i think the next president in office should worry more about what is going on in this country and make this country a more INDEPENDENT nation and address things like renewable resources, national homelessness, families living in poverty and national crime...i dont think we should be so dependent on other countries to port food, gas and other necessities....international ties are important but at the same time we should be able to function without them...we should not be paying farmers in our own country NOT to grow crop so that we can have another country ship it to us...now that puts the US in a hurt because more money is going OUT than coming in...
 
T

tizzo

Guest
Originally Posted by jrthomas40
http:///forum/post/2626864
im not for anyone weakening the armed forces of the military and national security to me that is an invite for terrorist...i dont think taxes should be raised but they should be evenly distributed because it is the more you own the more tax break you get...
And just imagine how many "jobs" would be lost if they cut down the military.
Rich people don't get more "breaks" so to speak, they have more write offs, cause they own more stuff, but all in all it evens out.
If I had one home, my taxes would be deductible, but if I were rich and I owned 10, it looks like I got a bigger "break" but I did after all purchase and maintain 10 properties...
So while the normal jo shmo get a ten thousand dollar write off, and the rich guy get 100 thousand, what they paid out evens in the end.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2626876
And just imagine how many "jobs" would be lost if they cut down the military.
Rich people don't get more "breaks" so to speak, they have more write offs, cause they own more stuff, but all in all it evens out.
If I had one home, my taxes would be deductible, but if I were rich and I owned 10, it looks like I got a bigger "break" but I did after all purchase and maintain 10 properties...
So while the normal jo shmo get a ten thousand dollar write off, and the rich guy get 100 thousand, what they paid out evens in the end.

You make a great point that it seems your average Democrat cannot comprehend.
My modest little 4 bedroom house has taxes of 1000.00 a year. A guy down the street has a really nice house that is on a SMALLER lot but it takes up more of it. His taxes are nearly double what mine are. He uses no more government services and it costs them no more to provide it. Should I complain that he will get a small slice of that back in the form of reduced income taxes?
 

devil dog

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2626994
You make a great point that it seems your average Democrat cannot comprehend.
My modest little 4 bedroom house has taxes of 1000.00 a year. A guy down the street has a really nice house that is on a SMALLER lot but it takes up more of it. His taxes are nearly double what mine are. He uses no more government services and it costs them no more to provide it. Should I complain that he will get a small slice of that back in the form of reduced income taxes?
I like the flat tax but it would never work...
it all sounds good but when you try to make things that have been in place for ever. You just can't see all the ways that it can fail. And the big thing is how they are going to pay for it... that’s the bad thing we will...
 
Top