David Limbaugh lists his reasons not to vote for Obama. His list partly overlaps ours, but adds some we mistakenly omitted. He asks:

Would Obama win if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent from his talk radio critics?

Phyllis Schlafly writes about another:

The issue of illegal aliens was censored out of the presidential debates and other coverage. The voters were kept oblivious to the fact that Obama favors giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and John McCain does not. This issue is so powerful with the voters that it played a major role in the dumping of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the unprecedented recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. It could have done likewise to Obama.  

      1.  UNQUALIFIED. He’s had no experience of running anything – no  town, no state, no business,  not even his own campaign, and now he is asking voters to trust him with running the United States of America:  defense, foreign affairs, domestic policy, the economy – and this at a time of economic crisis and international threat.

               2.     FAR LEFT.  He’s designated the most ‘liberal’ Senator, but in fact he’s even more to the left than that. He’s been closely associated with communists, terrorists, America-haters and Islamists all his life, not because he has ‘poor judgment’ (as McCain and Palin politely cluck), but because he shares their political opinions and aims, their prejudices and hatreds.  Eg:  Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, the New Party, Mike Klonsky of the ‘The Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)’, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground communist terrorist organization, Reverend Jeremiah Wright a friend and benefactor of Hamas, Rashid al-Khalidi an aider and abettor of Arafat and the PLO.  

              3.     SHADY DEALINGS. Eg. He has made sweetheart deals with the convicted criminal Tony Rezko.

             4.     DRUGS. He has been a drug user by his own admission.

             5.     ARROGANCE. Eg. ‘We are the ones we have been waiting for, to heal the planet, to slow the rising of the seas.’

             6.     APPEASING & DISARMING. He’d cut US defense spending, reduce or even abandon American nuclear arms, while the sworn enemies of the US, notably North Korea and Iran, are building nuclear arsenals; Russia is showing renewed expansionist ambitions; and Islamists are pursuing jihad against the non-Muslim world. He seems to believe that a word from him will stop the likes of Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad in their tracks and make them purr like pussycats.

             7.     REDISTRIBUTION. He’d ‘spread the wealth around’.  So just when the West European states are suffering the devastating effects of socialist welfare policies, Obama plans to take America down the same road to economic ruin.

             8.     PROTECTIONISM. Eg. He’d renegotiate NAFTA. US trade with the rest of the world will shrink.   

             9.     SPECIAL INTEREST FIXING. He’s a Big Labor supporter and would deprive trade unionists of their secret ballot.

            10. STATISM. He believes in enlarging government, and expanding government control over all private lives. How, when, where – and even if – people are treated when they are sick, how much or how little people may warm or cool their homes, even what and how much they eat, could be decided, overseen and regulated by an Obama government.  With a likely Democrat-controlled Congress – and compliant mainstream media – there’d be no brakes on him.

            11. AND YES, ANTI-AMERICAN. He has channeled funds to ‘education programs’ that in reality were indoctrination courses for the young in political radicalism, misusing charitable trusts. Eg. Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Woods Fund.

            12.  ANTI-LIFE. He is a supporter of extreme pro-abortion policies that include the killing by neglect of babies born alive.

            13.  IGNORANCE. Eg. ‘Interpreters of Arabic are needed in Afghanistan.’ ‘I’ve campaigned in 57 states and I think there’s one more to go.’ And a speech in Berlin that showed he had no idea of the actual history of the twentieth century, the why and wherefore and evil cruelty of the Berlin Wall, and what it took on the part of Western leaders Reagan and Thatcher to get it knocked down.  

            14.  LIES. Eg. ‘I never said kindergarten children should have sex education.’ 

            15. FLIP-FLOPPING. Eg. ‘The surge has not worked.’ ‘The surge has worked beyond our wildest dreams.’ ‘I’m against the surge.’ ‘I want to send more troops to Afghanistan.’ ’A surge in Afghanistan will not work.’

            16. DEFEATISM. He wanted America to surrender in Iraq.

            17.  HYPOCRISY. Eg. He’s against lobbyists and Wall Street ‘fat cats’, but appointed disgraced Fannie Mae executives as his advisors, and accepted huge sums of money in donations from Fannie Mae and other Wall Street institutions.

            18. ABSURD DOCTRINAIRE OBSTINACY. Eg.  ‘Inflate your tyres and America need not drill for its own oil.’  

            19.  INTIMIDATION AND ANTI FREE SPEECH. Citizens who criticize him have been threatened with criminal prosecution.  TV and radio stations that ask him or his vice-presidential candidate questions he doesn’t like are boycotted. 

            20.  YOUTH EXPLOITATION. He encourages children to propagandize their parents in his favor. Groups of schoolchildren and college students are formed as his support groups, taught ‘Obama songs’, and drilled in a manner chillingly reminiscent of the Hitler Youth and the Young Communists.

           21. VOTER FRAUD. He has funded Citizens Services Inc. which is ACORN’s campaign services entity. He has represented ACORN as a lawyer, and as a ‘community organizer’ he trained its personnel in techniques of intimidation and extortion. ACORN has been, and is continuing to be, investigated for voter-registration fraud, and numbers of its operatives have been convicted of criminal offences in the course of carrying out ACORN’s agenda.  

           22.  UNDERHAND POLITICAL MANEUVERING. He won elections in Illinois by challenging the signatures of petitioners, and discrediting opponents.     

           23. CORRUPTION. As a member of the Illinois legislature, he directed funds to corrupt slum-property developers.

            24. ILLICIT AND IMMORAL FOREIGN ADVENTURISM.  In Kenya he campaigned for Raila Odinga the mass-murderer. In Iraq he tried to undercut President Bush’s foreign policy by persuading Iraqi leaders to accept his timetable for US troop withdrawal rather than the President’s. 

            25.  ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALISM. He would appoint judges willing and eager to legislate from the bench rather than strictly interpret the Constitution. This could mean decades of change for the worse. 

In Communist China, children were urged to work on their parents and grandparents to make them conform to Mao’s will in the The Cultural Revolution. Likewise children in Russia and its satellites during the Soviet nightmare were directed to instruct their elders, and to betray them if they did not conform. The same was done to turn children into instruments of the state and against their families in Nazi Germany. Now it begins in the United States of America!  This from Little Green Footballs:

The Obama campaign’s attempted use of children to influence their parents is absolutely open and blatant. Why doesn’t this outrage people? This is political cynicism of an amazing degree.

Barack Obama | Change We Need | The Talk.

Do’s & Don’ts

Do share your personal reasons for voting for Barack Obama;

Do have confidence — your opinion matters to people who care about you;

Do read up on Barack’s positions on the issues you know matter to them;

Do find a good time when both you and they will be open to a conversation;

Do talk to them in person if you live nearby, or on the phone if you don’t;

Do ask your friends to talk to their parents and grandparents as well;

Don’t worry about knowing everything about policy positions before you have this conversation;

Don’t feel defensive. Stay calm, cool and collected;

Don’t wait until the last minute — it might take a few conversations for you to convince them, so start as early as possible;

Don’t catch them at a bad time — make sure you have their attention and enough time to have a conversation.

Unbelievable. And it gets worse.

Ideas to Get the Conversation Started

Approaching your parents about who they are voting for can be intimidating if you’ve never talked about politics with them before. But this campaign has been built by supporters sharing their stories about what inspires them and why they want to see change in this country. Here are some ideas for ways you can talk to your parents about why you support Barack:

Call or ask in person if they saw the debate and what they thought about it.Tell them why you are voting for Obama and why it’s important to you.

Print out for them information on some issues you know are important.

Share Barack’s speech from the Democratic National Convention or Meet Barack, a video about who Barack Obama is, where he comes from, and what his values are.

Email them and tell them why it’s important to you that they vote for Obama.

Think about their perspective. If they are Republican, or are concerned about Barack’s policies, think about where they are coming from and what makes them think the way that they do.

 

 Kenneth R Timmerman writes:

The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses – and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination – is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the November 4 presidential election, which is already under way. It’s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career. NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama’s first election victory – for Illinois state senate – in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph. “Mr. Obama won a seat in the state senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,” Fletcher wrote. Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate “was even more curious,” conservative columnist Tony Blankley writes in The Washington Times. Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife. Then in the general election, “lightning struck again,” Blankley writes, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife. Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.

 “Mr. Obama’s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,” Blankley writes, while “the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.” 

 From Front Page Magazine:

A foundation chaired by Barack Obama that was designed to improve Chicago public schools gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Small Schools Workshop, an organization led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers and by Michael Klonsky, a former chairman of both Students for a Democratic Society and, according to The Washington Post and New York Times, a group called the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).” 
 
"Ayers and an old comrade from SDS, Mike Klonsky, run the Small Schools Workshop to mentor and provide guidance and technical support to educators seeking to start small schools,” The Chicago Tribune reported on Sept. 16, 2001… 
 
The August 26, 1977 New York Times, citing Klonsky as leader of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), reported that he was one of only five Americans other than Secretary of State Vance and former President Richard Nixon and two Chinese-American scientists to have met with new Chinese Communist Party Chairman Hua Kuo-feng.
 
According to publicly available IRS 990 documents, the Small Schools Workshop that Klonsky ran with Bill Ayers received at least $800,000 from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) between 1998 and 2002. Obama chaired the CAC. 

 Thomas Sowell writes today:

If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.

But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.

And what has Senator Obama ‘always been?’ A red revolutionary radical.

 Caroline Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post:

Iran will likely be the first US adversary to test Obama. And Obama will have no idea what to do. While Obama has stated repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is a "game-changer," Obama’s own rule book for international relations has no relevance for dealing with Iran’s game.

Obama views international relations as a creature of American will. If America is nice to others, they will be nice to America. But the fact of the matter is that regimes like Iran hate the US regardless of how it behaves. The only question with strategic relevance for Washington is whether the Iranians also fear the US. And Obama has given them no reason to fear him. To the contrary, he has given them reason to believe that under his leadership, the mullahs can defeat America.

AMERICA STANDS to elect its new president in times of nearly unprecedented dangers. Iran is on the threshold of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Bush administration, North Korea now feels free to vastly expand its nuclear proliferation activities. Oil rich states like Venezuela, Russia and Iran recognize that with global oil prices decreasing, now is the time to strike before they are impoverished. And the international economic turmoil will cause Western nations to recoil from international confrontations and so embolden rogue states to attack their interests.

 Mark Steyn, fun to read and right as always, comments in part:

McCain vs. Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it’s not an "ideal world," and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will "heal the planet" and those of us who support McCainfaute de mieux. I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls "a point of no return."

It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, "Jimmy Carter’s second term," but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation – the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of that most-recent model: 40 years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.

All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why can’t the government sort out my health care? Why can’t they pick up my mortgage?

In his first inaugural address, Calvin Coolidge said: "I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people." That’s true in a more profound sense than he could have foreseen. In Europe, lavish social-democratic government has transformed citizens into eternal wards of the Nanny State: the bureaucracy’s assumption of every adult responsibility has severed Continentals from the most basic survival impulse, to the point where unaffordable entitlements on shriveled birth rates have put a question mark over some of the oldest nation states on Earth. A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, "unsustainable."

More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away this long with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which Western Europe has dozed this past half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious Western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

"People of the world," Sen. Obama declared sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, "look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people – the Barack Obamas of the day – were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity.

And the wall came down not because "the world stood as one," but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterrand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire (notwithstanding its own incompetence) would have survived, and the wall would still be standing. Sen. Obama’s feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because it’s the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing the easy-listening anthems of one-worldism, and the planet will heal.

To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving "fetuses" of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – i.e., the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex – voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely "present"?

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting "present," you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from "community organizer" to the world’s president-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the "Now what?" questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and U.N. foreign policy.

Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a "point of no return," the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

 

 From Little Green Footballs:

Former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl infiltrated the Weather Underground and helped prevent several bombing attacks by the group. In this clip from the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide, Grathwohl describes a Weather Underground meeting at which the terrorists discussed the need to murder at least 25 million people—those diehard American capitalists who would resist “reeducation.”

 

 

I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Concerning Obama’s membership of the extreme left New Party, this from ‘the corner’ of the National Review:

New Party: Where’s the Press?   [Stanley Kurtz]

In "Something New Here," I laid out Barack Obama’s ties to the far-left New Party. Blogger Trevor Loudon, of New Zeal, did the pioneering work on this issue. Today, Loudon has posted good quality scans of New Party documents and pictures confirming Obama’s membership. We’ve seen most of this information before (although only recently), but never so clearly.

With all its lengthy background pieces, has the New York Times ever noted that Barack Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the New Party? What about theWashington Post? Has any major television network, any national news magazine, or any major daily newspaper ever mentioned that Barack Obama was endorsed by, or was a member of, the New Party? If any such outlet has ever mentioned that fact, have they ever gone on to explain in any depth exactly what the New Party was? For example, have they laid out the extremely close ties between the New Party in Chicago and ACORN? Especially with issue of Obama’s ties to ACORN so much in the news, isn’t this a major story right now?

Can any blogger out there answer these questions? I repeat: Has any major television network, any national news magazine, or any major daily newspaper ever mentioned Barack Obama’s membership in, or endorsement by, the New Party, and then gone on to explore and explain what the New Party was, including its ties to ACORN? Isn’t the membership of a major party nominee and currently favored candidate to become president of the United States in a third party a major news story? Is it not the height of press irresponsibility to ignore this fact?

Now some folks might be disturbed by Obama’s New Party membership and/or endorsement, and some may not. But isn’t this something the American people are entitled to know and decide on for themselves?