Read this Barack Obama quote and tell me this guy isn’t absolutely out of his mind:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK” - Barack Obama
So here is what an Obama administration will do in office according to this statement.
First, he will take away your SUV. How is Barack Obama going to take away your SUV? Well, it’s safe to say he will try to do it by allowing oil prices to continue to climb and climb and climb. He’ll do this by refusing to drill for our own oil in America, refusing to develop nuclear energy, and refusing to develop coal to oil. That would be one way to try and take away your SUV.
Barack Obama will also try to redistribute wealth. Socialists will be socialists! He’ll do his best to make sure that your income is so heavily taxed that you can’t possibly afford to buy another SUV or insure the one you already own! He might also come up with some crazy idea like a special SUV “sin tax” (kind of like a cigarette or liquor tax) that will discourage you from buying an SUV. Rest assured, Barack Obama will do what he can to make sure you can’t get your greedy little hands on an SUV.
Now, if that wasn’t enough, Obama will also push the government to enforce ridiculous fuel efficiency standards which are so high that it will be next to impossible for the auto makers to create an affordable SUV. Again, under a Barack Obama administration, he’ll make sure to do everything he can to take away your freedom to buy an SUV. Heck, Big brother knows best!
Second, you better get ready to lose some weight, not because it’s a good idea for you health wise, but because the Obama administration is going to cut off your food supplies! Heck, you think food prices are bad now (thanks to government ethanol subsidies) just wait until Obama starts cracking down.
I wonder how he’ll try and cut off your food supply? Expect more “sin taxes” on fast food, junk food, or anything papa Barack doesn’t think is good for your growing body! Maybe you’ll only be allowed to take home the food that the government allows you to take home. Just picture a bread line like you might see in your favorite communist nation. Barack Obama is a huge fan of communism, so why not? Obama will be cutting off your food supply for the good of the collective. Resistance is futile!
The third agenda of the Obama administration will be to control your thermostat. Heck, the state of California is looking at government controlled thermostats so why not the entire nation? If you’re living in a home where it’s 72 degrees, you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re no better than a street thug or cracked out junkie. You’re a dirty rotten criminal!
If the American people seriously put Comrade Obama in office, it will be an all time low for a nation that loves (used to love) freedom.
There are certain phrases that just don’t resonate with me. When someone says they’re a “non-practicing Christian,” I just don’t get what that means. You either are or aren’t a follower of Christ. To say you are a follower but don’t actually follow Him makes no sense.
Similarly, I don’t understand those who say they’re “mostly pro-life.” I don’t think the issue is one you can be lukewarm on. You’re either in favor of the guaranteed right to life or you’re opposed to it by putting conditions upon that right. “Abortion rights” supporters seemingly think of the right to life in the same terms as getting your credit approved for a loan (or in some cases winning the lottery!). If you’re qualified, you have the right to life! Let’s take a look at some of the conditions that these “abortion rights” proponents think need to be met in order for a person to have the right to be born.
Some will say that you should be guaranteed the right to life only if you’re conceived by parents who want you, otherwise too bad! Others might suggest it depends upon whether or not the parents who conceived you are financially capable of raising you. In other cases, your right to life might be a matter of whether or not the parents that conceived you have genetic defects that may have a chance of being passed on to you. After all, it’s survival of the fittest! The majority of “abortion rights” proponents believe you have the right to life as long as certain conditions are met which are completely out of your control. Let’s hope you’re lucky!
What about those who are “mostly pro-life.” Are they any different? No, I’m sad to say they are not. They also believe you should have the right to life, so long as you you meet certain conditions! Now these conditions are much more difficult (they will say), but they are still completely out of your control (as a baby in your mother’s womb). These folks will suggest that you have the right to life so long as your mother wasn’t raped or a victim of incest. If either of those cases arise, don’t expect to be asked your opinion on the matter. You’re just an unlucky son of a gun and, let’s face it, you should probably be denied your right to life!
What if a mother’s life is in danger? This hypothetical situation is commonly used by “abortion rights” proponents to justify their position. There are two problems with this reasoning. First, situations like this are rarer than you think. Second, a situation like this is different because it involves saving a life. Doctors have always been free to deal with emergency medical situations where saving a life is necessary. This was true prior to legalized abortions. In these rare situations professional judgment must be exercised to save as much life as possible, not to destroy it. This justification for legalized abortions is nothing more than a red herring in the debate over the right to life.
The majority of abortions happen when unwanted, non-life threatening, scenarios occur which subject a baby’s right to life to certain conditions. The conditions may differ in severity, but they still violate a guaranteed right to life. What’s so sad is that in each of these cases (the mild and the extreme) the child is completely innocent. I’m not trying to suggest that rape, incest, tough economic situations, or other unfortunate circumstances are anything to be taking lightly, but I don’t see the logic in killing a child to fix the problem. That logic is ludicrous. Let me give you an analogy to compare it with.
Let’s say someone robs you at gunpoint. They steal $100 from you. The thief gets away, and you’re out a hundred bucks. What do you do? You see someone nearby with a $100 bill and you take it from them. You’ve got your $100 back and that’s all that matters. Does that make any sense to you? If it does, I would politely suggest you seek professional help. Two wrongs don’t make a right!
So the next time you hear someone say they’re “mostly pro-life” feel free to correct them, and let them know that they are actually pro-abortion.
I have been disgusted with the comparison of sexual behaviors and race for a long time. I’ve heard individuals compare the acceptance of homosexual behavior with the civil rights era too many times to count. This angers me to no end. It is a deceptive comparison used to illicit a sympathetic emotional response and it dishonors those who have fought for civil rights and it hurts the cause of racial harmony.
You see, discriminating against an individual solely for an attribute which is out of their control (like race) is not only wrong, it shows a lack of intelligence. Much like an innocent baby in the womb is not guilty of anything for merely existing, a person cannot be held responsible for an attribute like race, gender, or age that they did not choose. A behavior is a completely different animal. Homosexuality deserves to be a protected class about as much as peanut butter and jelly sandwich eaters do.
I’m a firm believer that special protected classes should be limited to attributes that are not choices an individual makes, but instead natural biological traits. Age, Gender, Race, Ethnicity, these are all traits that every human being shares but does not choose. You do not have a say in whether or not you’ll be male or female. Nor do you have a say in whether you’re black or white. These are simply facts. The same cannot be said for “sexual orientation.” How can I be so sure? With age, gender, and race the proof is self evident. With “sexual orientation” the burden of proof has not been met.
There is no conclusive scientific consensus to show us that anything other than heterosexuality is something that anyone is actually born with. We also have evidence of individuals who have made the decision to behave in a homosexual or bisexual way, and then there are those who flip back and decide to act heterosexual again! These are all behavioral choices made by individuals. There is no reason people who behave in this fashion should be considered a protected class. Last time I checked, there isn’t any way to change your race (unless your Michael Jackson) but even then all he’s done is change his skin color not his actual racial makeup.
Furthermore, there is the fact that we are naturally born with one of two genders, when these two different genders come together they can reproduce. When two members of the same gender try to come together… well… needless to say it simply doesn’t work out! I’m certainly not suggesting that reproduction is the sole purpose of a relationship but it’s certainly a major factor in choosing a life partner. If it weren’t why would so many heterosexual couples have children and why would homosexual couples seek to adopt children? To me that shows that they (the homosexual couples) are subconsciously seeking some normalcy in their relationship. People simply aren’t born like this, to live a homosexual lifestyle is to behave abnormally.
So, now that I’ve got homosexuals fired up, let me say this: I’m not trying to tell you what what to do with your lifestyle. That’s your decision alone. It only becomes something I’m concerned with when I am forced to accept it as a protected class! This in essence means that I have to endorse your behavior. Which is just silly! The whole point of my argument here is that behavior choices don’t deserve special rights. By giving special rights to homosexuals it not only elevates the behavior but it also tramples on the rights of individuals who don’t share the same behavior nor do they accept it.
Some people will no doubt think I’m clearly out of touch for writing this logical nonsense. I don’t claim to be politically correct, I just claim to be right.
The terrorist organization Hamas, which has called for the destruction of Israel, has weighed in on the United States presidential election. Who do the radical Jihadist Muslims endorse? Barack Hussein Obama. Should this matter to Americans? Nah, probably not.
What does this all mean? I don’t know, but given what we already know about Barack Obama’s relationship with the racist Rev. Wright, the American terrorist William Ayers, and the crook Tony Rezko, it doesn’t help his image.
Read this Barack Obama quote and tell me this guy isn’t absolutely out of his mind:
The terrorist organization Hamas, which has called for the destruction of Israel, has weighed in on the United States presidential election. Who do the radical Jihadist Muslims endorse? Barack Hussein Obama. Should this matter to Americans? Nah, probably not.
