Tag Archives: Barak Obama

Presidential Candidates’ Stand on Life Issues

Live Action, known for its investigative journalism,came out with a guide to the position of the candidates running for president and vice-president. Those candidates are Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as well as Democrat incumbents Barak Obama and Joe Biden.

After stating each candidate’s stand of the right to life, the guide present historical statements and positions of each candidate to prove the validity of each candidates views.

To read or download a copy of the guide, go to http://liveactionadvocate.org/LAFLYER.pdf.

Why the Stimulus has Failed Ohio

By Mary McCleary

It is a generally accepted fact that the stimulus did not work and the supposed “Summer of Recovery” was anything but that. Since the original stimulus package was passed under President George W. Bush, national unemployment has doubled from 4.8 percent to 9.6 percent while Ohio unemployment has risen from 5.6 percent to 10.1 percent. When Congress passed the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, President Barack Obama promised unemployment would stay below eight percent, yet unemployment continued to rise.

Both the original stimulus and the ARRA have miserably failed, and the big question is why. Why isn’t all this spending leading to a revitalized economy?

Stimulus spending does nothing to create wealth. It is merely a redistribution of already existing wealth. Sound confusing? Frederic Bastiat, a nineteenth century political economist, illustrates this concept well through his Broken Window Fallacy.

In Bastiat’s example, a child carelessly breaks a store window. The shopkeeper, in turn, must spend money to replace the broken window. Therefore, the shopkeeper stimulates the economy through purchasing a new window, right? Not so fast.

While the window company benefits from the broken window, other people and industries are hurt by the destruction of capital. Due to the broken window, the shopkeeper has less disposable income to spend on other goods and services. He has to purchase a new window instead of spending his money on new business equipment or whatever he chooses. Thus, the shopkeeper is poorer than he previously was, and other industries do not benefit from the shopkeeper’s dollars. No real wealth is created.

How does this tie into all the stimulus spending? Pretend you are the shopkeeper and the government is the child that forces you to spend money. To “stimulate” the economy, the government forces you to give $500 to subsidize a window company. You lose $500 of disposable income, as do the establishments where you would have spent that money. No wealth is created – it is merely redistributed.

When the government stimulates the economy, it doesn’t create wealth. Instead, it merely picks the winners and the losers.

Since March 2000, Ohio has lost 588,600 private sector jobs (second only to Michigan). Of these job losses, 137,000 occurred after ARRA went into effect (Ohio has lost 386,800 jobs since Governor Ted Strickland took over). If “stimulus” spending isn’t helping Ohio reach better days, what will?

* Broad-base tax reform. Ohio has the seventh highest state and local tax burden. High taxes hurt economic growth and give companies an incentive to locate to lower tax states.

* Regulatory reform. Regulations increase the cost of doing business. Just recently, Continental Plastics moved to Indiana to avoid an Ohio regulation costing Toledo over 200 jobs. According to the Toledo Blade, since 2000, about 140 factories have closed in northwest Ohio with a majority relocating to the southern United States. In fact, 20 companies over the last ten years have left Ohio for just Atlanta, Georgia.

* Right-to-work reform. Ohio does not protect a worker’s freedom to choose whether or not to join a union to obtain employment. Over the last 20 years, right-to-work states have added and sustained jobs twice as fast as forced unionization states like Ohio – even after large housing-related job losses in Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. The 15 worst states for job growth since January 1990 are all forced unionization states, while 11 of the 15 top states are right-to-work states.

* Budget reform. Ohio currently faces an estimated $8.4 billion budget deficit. In a state already struggling, raising taxes is not a viable option for recovery. The budget must be realigned to fit the economic conditions of the time. To minimize the effect on our vulnerable populations, the compensation of government workers cannot be taken off the table. If state government worker compensation is realigned to match the private sector, the state could save over $2 billion dollars in the next budget.

As Bastiat and the stimulus have proven, redistributive spending is no way to dig out of an economic hole. While Ohioans have relatively little sway over federal government spending, Ohioans do have an important say in how this state is run. It is time for our leaders to make the tough choices and for the people to hold them accountable when they don’t.

Mary McCleary is a policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute.

Why Ground Zero Mosque is Not Good for Islam or America

No wonder Muslims around the world claim the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center project is bad for Islam. First, the original name proposed by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf for the mosque, Cordoba House, is a throw-back to its Middle Aged namesake famous as a launch pad for Islam’s militant efforts of global domination. The term used for it is Jihad, which is more than just a religious concept of self-rule. It also is a term depicting militant religious conversion of all infidels or non-Muslims.

If peace with the Western world were actually the Rauf’s goal, why then has he developed a Shariah Index? Not to be confused with some of financial indexes, the purpose of his index is to measure how well nations conform to the Sharia law. It is a Western tool to make governments and cultures compliant to policy goals. The Koran provides the principles and Sharia law provides enforceable sanctions. After Muslims conquered Spain over 1,300 years ago, they launched their camapign to conquer the Western world from Cordoba. The Shariah Index shows Rauf’s intention is to launch a similar campaign to again conquer the West. However, this time Jihad comes in the deceptive form of tolernace, education, and peace.

The ultimate aim of Muslim clerics like Rauf is to convert the world to Islam. At Cordoba Spain, the victory was secured by militant Jihad. Peaceful co-existence came at the point of swords of Muslim rulers. Peaceful co-existence was the result of enforcing Shariah law upon predominately Christian Spain.

Amerincans and the West becoming aware of such relations between Muslim and Christians at Cordoba indeed would not be good for the Islamic cause.

Second, one of the primary financial backers of the Ground Zero mosque is Hisham Elzanaty, who has been a financial supporter of Hamas. Elzanty, an Egypian born New York medical supply dealer, also has gained noteriety for attempting to scam Medicaire. Don’t ask–don’t tell policy in Islamic circles may make it difficullt for fellow Muslims to distinguish between those who are committing “terrorism” and who are doing good social works, but to many Western onlookers their seems to be little difference. This is more than Islamaphobia or racism; it is just the proper kind of skepticism or maybe fear. (NY Post, September 3, 2010)

Third, and last, is the recent discovery that the U.S. government is funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the globe. Ancient Rome under Caesar did the same thing. Nicole Thompson, spokeswoman for the State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP), stated the purpose of these projects:

“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.” (Newsmax, September 6, 2010)

Notice, the Obama administration justifies spending millions of taxpayer money to fund foreign “cultural preservation” projects as somehow preservering our cultural heritage. Islamic cultural is not our culture. It may be Obama’s and Hilary may have adopted her assistants religious culture, but is not America’s culture. Christian culture and law our heritage. The U.S. is not the United Nations, but apparently, globalists like Obama think otherwise.

Obama’s official support of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center is a tell-tale sign of why it is not good for Americans either. Not only is federal tax dollars financing Imam Abdul-Rauf’s fundraising trips but state taxpayer money may also be given to underwrite the mosque. Obama’s diplomatic along with financial backing of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center gives legitimacy to the ancient dream of a global and triumphant Islam. (NY Post, August 10, 2010 and Reuters, August 27, 2010)

Islam, AIG Bailouts, Federal Reserve Banks, Tim Geithner, and Barak Obama : Connections

I just came across a pending federal court case against U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the Federal Reserve for their involvement in the federal governments bailout of AIG bank. The case alleges the federal government’s bailout and majority ownership is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. By bailout and acquiring a controlling interest in AIG, the federal government participates in funding Islamic Sharia law and religious activities. The White House leaders and Federal Reserve leaders not only knew they were funding Islamic religious activities but the openly publish it on official website and similar means of communication.

It becomes clearer why a Muslim President was needed to work his PR magic throughout a stupefied America as well as predominately Muslim Middle East. Acquiring AIG is good for Islam. It is good for federal revenues, and it is good some types of investors. However, it is not good for predominately non-Muslim taxpayers to fund Islamic religious activities no matter how profitable it may be.

Some prophecy writers see Islam as dominating the globe during what the Bible describes as the last days. The same believe the anti-Christ will be a Muslim. They also see this anti-Christ figure as having worldwide control over commerce and banking. Could it be we are witnessing the means by which the anti-Messiah will rise to this level of power?

Americans Against Congress’ Deficit Increasing Health Care Reform

In a December 22 Quinnipiac University poll, most Americans (53-36 percent) opposed the House and Senate Health Care Reform plans.

As usual, partisan politics is evident. Independent voters “mostly disapprove” 58 – 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 – 10 percent. Democrats “mostly approve” 64 – 22 percent.

Although most Americans (56-38 percent) support giving individuals the option of coverage by a government plan, they strongly oppose 72-24 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions.

Americans are not happy with Pres. Obama’s performance concerning health care reform. Quinnipiac researchers found that 56-38 percent disapproved. They not only are Americans dissatisfied with Obama’s role in pushing for more universal health care, but a strong majority do not believe he will be able to keep his promise to overhaul it without increasing the federal deficit.

Slightly more Americans 56-36 percent do not want health care reform if it will increase the national debt.

Paying for Health Care Reform

By Daniel Downs

President Obama often said people like himself could pay for health care reform. That is, high-income taxpayers can afford high tax rates to help fund universal health care.

Thomas Jefferson held a similar view. He was critical of industrious citizens getting rich while others citizens were going without. He believed the wealthy should assist the less fortunate to achieve a livable income.

The difference between the views of Obama and Jefferson may not be apparent. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in their views. Obama adheres to a form of contemporary liberalism that has embraced the values of humanism, egalitarianism, and welfare socialism. Although Jefferson was more liberal than many of his day, he was nevertheless a rock solid natural law proponent. His values were characterized by traditional moral values, entrepreneurial capitalism, and natural rights equality. Stated more simply, Obama tends towards being a big government socialism while Jefferson was oriented toward being a limited government capitalism.

To Jefferson, the term capitalist meant entrepreneurs of small businesses including farms, repair shops, small manufacturers or craftsmen, merchants, and the like.

Today, the term capitalism certainly includes owners of small businesses; but, in practice, many modern politicians favor a big business view. Internationalists, like Obama and most federal politicians, give their allegiance to supporting national, international, and especially Wall Street business.

However, Jefferson, as did Adam Smith, opposed big business as a threat to independent “capitalists”. One reason was that they regarded big business as quasi-governmental entities, and so do many financial experts today. Like incorporated federal banks and Fannie Mae, for-profit corporations are government created entities.

The point is this: Obama, as representative of the Democratic Party, says he wants the more wealthy to pay for their welfare based benefits program for middle and lower income citizens. The obvious problem is high income citizens live off the productivity of lower income employees, taxpayers, and consumers. Early Americans like Thomas Jefferson were very critical of it. Why? As expressed by John Locke, property and productivity belonged to the worker. In other words, the means of production belonged to all Americans equal to their need and capacity.

Taxing for the limited functions of government was and is the necessary cost to secure property and life as well as to maintain the freedom to pursue as much happiness as possible. Taxing for redistribution from the haves to the have-nots was regarded as robbery just as the low wage living was regarded as slavery.

Returning health care and how to pay for it, we can restate the issue like this: the wealthy own businesses, investment and legal firms, as well as medical practices. The so-called poor do not. Therefore, the rich should pay more to provide adequate health care for the poor and middle-class.

Yet, one could argue that most businesses already pay their employees’ health care. They also pay into Medicare as well as into group health care. Employees pay a small portion of the health insurance costs. It is part of the overall wage.

So then, why should we make businesses pay their employees higher wages?

The only reason to pay employees higher wages would be for them to pay 100 percent of the cost of health care insurance. Who says it has to be a responsibility of employers and government. Are not individuals capable of purchasing their own group insurance?

The same is true of all other government-initiated social safety net programs including social security, welfare, and ESEA (now called No Child Left Behind), and S-CHIP. With the proper education, individuals and their local communities would be more capable of and efficient at providing their own social safety nets.

Without poor wage earners, all of those programs would not be needed and would be more difficult to justify.

Those social safety net programs were all good ideas, but all became means to enlarging federal powers over American lives. Except for Social Security, most of those programs never produced the results that were sold to American citizens. Corporations whose revenues are in the multi-millions and billions often get welfare subsidies. Are not the bank and manufacturer bailouts a form of welfare? After billions of taxpayer funding, the ESEA program still has not closed the educational gap between children of poor families and others; it still has resolved the huge school drop out problem; add it still has not made American children’s globally competitive in math and science. One would think that over 40 years or 3 generations Americans would have achieved this goal. Then there is S-CHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) that never has been used strictly to help the children of poor families. Why? Because the agenda of liberal bureaucrats always has been to complete the goal of making the middle class welfare dependents or good socialists.

Democrats justify their health care reform based on the millions of Americans without adequate health care. Yet, Congressional Budget Office analysis of so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962) shows over 18 million will still be uninsured by 2019 under the bogus reform bill.

The fake reform will not even end the injustice perpetrated by the the government’s so-called safety net. After paying 20-40 years into the Medicare retirement age health care fund, the state often takes every possession of those who cash in on the supposed safety net. That seems more like a big brother scam and not a safety net.

Maybe, Bernie Madoff’s real crime was learning and practicing the art of his liberal big brother.

The answer to the health care problem is not the enlargement of government or government run health care. It is reforming the political economy. If as President Obama, Jim Wallis, and others claim, the rich can afford to pay more taxes for health care reform, they could afford to pay better wage rates so that all American could purchase health care they and their families want. The cure for making health care affordable (reducing costs and increasing earned income) would solve many other societal problems tied to America’s political economy.

Congressman Austria Co-Sponsors Czar Accountability & Reform Act

As you may know, recent attention has been drawn to the administration’s appointment of new czars. While the position of the czar has existed in past administrations, the present concern is focused on the number of czars President Obama has appointed in his short time in office, as well as the amount of power these individuals are given. It has been estimated that there are currently 34 czars in the administration. Questions of constitutionality have arisen because czars are not required to go through the regular confirmation process as, for example, is required for a cabinet secretary. With sweeping new policies that have extensive ramifications, like the stimulus bill, it is important that these individuals are kept accountable to the public.

That is why Rep. Austria became a cosponsor of the Czar Accountability and Reform Act (H.R. 3226), which would prohibit the use of tax dollars to pay the salaries and expenses of these “czars” without the advice and consent of the Senate. There must be complete disclosure, transparency and accountability for those appointed to these important positions.

— From Congressman Steve Austria’s E-Mail Updates.

Obama’s eligibility publicly challenged in next week’s Chicago Tribune

(Queensbury, NY) Using his hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, the We The People Foundation will publicly challenge President-elect Barack Obama to direct the State of Hawaii to provide access to his original (“vault”) birth certificate. The Foundation’s full-page “Open Letter to Barack Obama” will appear in the Chicago Tribune next Monday and Wednesday.

“Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a “natural born citizen,” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. “To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his eligibility.”

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.

“Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution,” said Schulz.

A copy of the Open Letter can be viewed at:


Is Obama a naturalized citizen? Not according to his Kenyan Grandmother

African-American organization leader with affiliates in Kenyan interviewed his real grandmother, Sarah Obama. She testified that she was present at his birth in Kenya not in Hawaii. (To read the affidavits click here. To read the taped interview of Sarah Obama, click here).

I have reviewed the public copy of Obama’s supposedly official Hawaiian birth certificate. It is not. No one has proven it is–not FactCheck.org, not Obama, not any officials of Hawaii. It is said that the original exists but without any real evidence. The birth certificate I saw is laser printed. (Click here to see for yourself.) Laser print technology was not invented until 1969. Obama was born in 1961. Laser printers were not commercially available until the late 1970s or early 1980s. Yes, Obama’s birth certificate could have been originally printed by a dot matrix printer. However, the course text of dot matrix printing would likely have been magnified by the finer print detail of laser printers. The certificate displayed by Obama’s campaign and by others is simply not an original birth certificate. If one actually exist (which is doubtful), the original should be scanned and publicly displayed dispelling all doubt about his citizenship. Obama could dispell all public doubts about his qualification for the office of president by doing it himself. The presidency is too important a Constitutional matter for it to left in doubt.

Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, has reported that Obama has never received a background security check. The FBI has not investigated Obama to ensure that he is a legitimate citizen and not a threat to our nation. Sarah Palin was investigated. This is supposed to be standard procedure for all government office holders. Maybe it’s only for women and conservatives and not for those associated with terrorists, communists, radical Islamists, and Democrats. If Kincaid is right, Obama may not be legit.

As the old saying goes, “when in doubt, don’t…don’t vote for such a questionable candidate to the highest public office of our nation.

Economic Recession : Connecting Candidates, Trends, Values and Voting

It’s a Bad Idea to Elect Candidates to Improve the Economy

Encouraging congregants to vote on Tuesday November 4, my pastor shared some very profound insights about how to view the issues. He said that we would be electing people who will be representing our views and our futures. Those we elect will make decision that will not only affect our own lives but our community and out nation He then followed with an insight applicable to all elections for all time.

The economy is constantly changing. The boom and bust cycles will continue no matter who is in office. We should not vote for candidates based on a troubled economy because it will eventually improve anyway.

Adding to his insight, I want to point out that our economy and its free markets are not some mysterious force operating outside the realm of human behavior. The economy is human behavior. The markets are the results of nothing other than human decisions. Intentionally or unintentionally, the problems and benefits of our economy are the results of human behaviors. The boom and bust cycles of our current economy are the results of policy decisions, trade and consumption practices, errors and neglect, as well as greed and irrational fears. Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats blame Bush for their own bad policy decisions and neglect of the mortgage markets that Congress created. And, Bush’s spending didn’t happen without their approval either.

The Obama Connection?

Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy in Media Report, wrote an article on who is behind the economic collapse. To appreciate his argument, you must read the entire article. Here, I will try to summarize some of his main evidence to illustrate my point. Kincaid research points to Democrats as the primary actors suspected of generating the current economic crisis of New Deal proportions. His research ties US Treasury Secretary Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs to leading Democratic Party fundraisers, and to Barak Obama. Those suspected of creating the current economic crisis for political reasons would not be complete without George Soros, who has a reputation for creating national economic crises. Other writers have produced lists of former employees of Goldman Sachs who have filled leading positions in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many others are being investigated, according to Kincaid.

Recession and Election Cycle Trends

If I remember correctly, the past four or five presidents were elected during an economic correction sometimes called recession. According to financial expert John Mauldin, President George W. Bush inherited an economy already in recession from Democrat Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, Americans elected Clinton as President in part to solve the recession that occurred during George HW Bush’s term in office. We voted Ronald Reagan into office because of his plans to solve the deep recession inherited from Jimmy Carter. Many Republicans voted for Democrat and Baptist Jimmy Carter because of they believed his faith was real and because of his plan to solve the recession-sized energy crisis. Like my parents, many Republicans were sorely disappointed.

Learning From the Past?

It must be questioned whether the most educated people in the world are capable of learning from the past. It is claimed that many Republicans again favor a Democrat for president. That is certainly their right. Many religious leaders have championed the cause of the Democratic Party its candidates. Again, that is their right. Yet, the Democratic Party is more socialistic, more pro-abortion, more opposed to traditional marriage than ever. Their presidential candidate does have religious credentials. However, the religious aura surrounding Barak Obama is a cloud of illusion. I think it is more of a smoke screen for the sole purpose of winning an election. Whether McCain is sincerely Christian is debatable as well. However, his VP choice at least gives us hope for a strong pro-life and pro-family influence in the Whitehouse.

I return to my original point borrowed from my pastor. Whether economic crises are the result of evil intentions or simply bad decisions, they are the product of human behaviors. They have occurred throughout our nation’s history. As now, they have always been corrected by appropriate behavior and policy decision. This corrective process is already in motion. Therefore, whoever we elect as the next president is mostly irrelevant.

Voting Decisions and Issues of Unchanging Importance

My pastor continued his political exhortation with another and even more important insight. Instead of making our voting decisions based on a continuously changing economy, we would find better representation in government if we made our decisions based on unchanging criteria. Going back to the biblical book of Genesis, he reminded us of source of our moral values, the sanctity of human life, and of human dignity. These are the most important criterion. As history teaches, the decline of morality in societies always results in that society’s end. Therefore, in this pivotal election, we will choose whether morality and the sanctity of life will be upheld and strengthened or whether morality will continue to decline.

Having done my own research, it is clear to me which candidate will defend the life of the unborn, the sanctity of traditional marriage, and the general morality our form of democracy has always required. Like the traditions of their respective parties, Democrat Barak Obama favors abortion and opposes defining marriage as one man and one woman because he supports the politics of sexual immorality. John McCain claims to be pro-life and favors overturning Roe v Wade because it was an erroneous ruling. He supports traditional marriage but believes it’s outside the power of federal government to decide on issues of marriage.

Voting Means Judgments—Of Candidate and Maybe of God

As Americans used to believe regarding disasters whether affecting national, state, and local communities, I too believe America is already experiencing God’s justice for the long official support for every form of immorality, for the brutal slaughter of millions of unborn children, for legitimizing unnatural and harmful behaviors of gays, and for many other crimes against God’s moral laws. If this assessment is correct, then this election is the most important and most pivotal of all elections in American history comparable to the election of Abraham Lincoln.


(Note: The title of John Mauldin’s financial commentary referenced above presents the insightful and witty perspective of it gifted author; the title is “Electing the Janitor-In-Chief”. Mauldin’s work is profitable reading and can be accessed at his website www.fronlinethoughts.com)