I can't help but smile when I hear a black conservative speak out against Obama. Allen West and Herman Cain have done an awesome job communicating their message of conservative principles needed to save this nation. Tea Party spokesman Lloyd Marcus is another such individual.
Read from the American Thinker:
America Desperately Needs A Hero...but Who?
By Lloyd Marcus
"Stunned Americans are asking, 'Why would Obama, in an election year, boldly trash the first amendment, forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control, abortion drugs, and other contraceptive services which go against their faith?' These baffled, naïve people still do not get it. First and foremost, Obama is a hardcore leftist hater of America as we know it. He is laser-focused on implementing his vowed fundamental transformation of America into a socialistic, secular-progressive Disneyland.
As proven by their gleeful willingness to exempt Obama from the usual vetting process during his 2008 presidential campaign, the liberal mainstream media has given Obama every reason to be confident in their cover and support as Obama ignores the Constitution to fulfill his anti-America anti-freedom agenda.
For three years, we have witnessed Obama slowly peeling off his well-crafted 'moderate' mask. Our first glimpse of the real Obama was his unprecedented government hostile takeover of private secular auto companies and his bullying banks to accept government bailouts.
Then, despite a majority of Americans screaming 'No!' to ObamaCare, Obama basically said 'screw y'all' and forced the passage of his health care bill. A Rasmussen poll that week showed that 55% of Americans wanted it repealed. It did not matter. The king had decreed it so. Displaying off-the-chain arrogance and dictatorial power, Obama's enforcer, Nancy Pelosi, ruled that '[w]e have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.' Yes, even Democrats who voted to pass the bill were clueless regarding its content. Obama revealed a little more of the man behind the mask.
Due to my commitment to make my point as concisely as possible, I will not list Obama's unprecedented overreaching power-grabs, trashing of the Constitution, and crimes against individual freedoms. Let's just say that Obama has revealed two-thirds of his true face. What we are seeing is more horrifying than anyone could have possibly imagined.
If un-repealed, ObamaCare will literally give this man (Obama) power to dictate which Americans live or die -- that is, total control of our lives. Lord help us. Only God should have such power.
My black centenarian grandmother cried tears of joy when Obama was elected. Ironically, her hero's government-controlled health care, which will be rationed, equals a death sentence for my grandma if she needs an expensive procedure. Economist Thomas Sowell points out that government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. The sick, the elderly, and the disabled will suffer the most when the government rations care. Obama blatantly suggested that a senior might consider taking a pill rather than having surgery.
Clearly, Obama feels emboldened to do whatever he pleases. If Obama is arrogant enough to ignore the First Amendment and 'dis' a huge bloc of Catholic supporters in an election year, think how full-blown, no-hold-barred, out-of-control his attacks on freedom will be if he is re-elected.
To save America, we must select a conservative nominee best capable of defeating Obama. I believe that candidate is Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.
Now, I respect y'all too much to blow smoke claiming Newt to be a great conservative. Frankly, his attacks on Bain Capital infuriated me. However, there are things I love about Newt. Newt is brilliant at articulating conservatism and experienced at successfully implementing conservative ideas. But most of all, Newt understands that the biggest, most destructive threat to America as we know it is Barack Hussein Obama. And also extremely important is the fact that Newt is not intimidated by the 'race thing.' Newt does not give a hoot about being called a racist. Newt is fearlessly eager to aggressively address America's problem which is Obama.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are good, decent men. However, I do not believe that Romney has the stomach to say and do what needs to be done to defeat Obama. While I will enthusiastically support whichever of our candidates winning the Republican nomination, I disagree with Paul's foreign policy ideas.
I really like Santorum. However, I am not confident that he can raise the funds necessary to override Obama's billion-dollar campaign.
Also, right or wrong, like it or not, a presidential candidate has to have 'it,' a special charisma. How else could an inexperienced freshman senator like Obama win the presidency of the United States? Newt Gingrich has 'it.' Again, I admit, he 'ain't' perfect. But Newt does not wish to end America as we know it. Obama does and will!
Brother and sister patriot Americans, like Bonnie Tyler sang in her song, 'I Need a Hero,' America desperately needs a hero. I believe that that person is Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.
If Obama is allowed to continue his occupation of the White House after November 6, 2012, he will boldly remove his mask, completely revealing his face. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
As to the GOP primary, I still am grieving the loss of Herman Cain and am not certain which candidate I support. My primary is not for a few months so I still have some time to decide. In the meantime, I waffle from one to another.
I agree with Marcus that Newt is the one most willing to go after Obama with a vengeance, and who wouldn't love to watch him destroy Obama in a debate? But, I believe that his personal baggage is too big to overcome. Women can't stand the guy. How does he overcome that?
Romney has all the right experience as former governor and CEO executive, but inspires no excitement because of his history of waffling and conservatives' unwillingness to trust him. He will get killed with the class warfare nonsense that is dominating the news.
Ron Paul is out of the question because of his nutty foreign policy.
That leaves us with Rick Santorum who is the one I am most comfortable with at this present moment. I'm not overly thrilled with him because he voted in favor of Bush's costly programs while he was the senator in PA. However, he certainly has less baggage than Newt and is more likable than Romney. Regarding his whooping in 2006, when he was soundly defeated by Bob Casey, Jr., we must not forget that 2006 was a horrible year for the GOP because voters were furious at Bush over the war in Iraq. Another factor was also at play. Casey was the son of former PA Governor Bob Casey Sr. who was well-liked and had died of liver cancer. His blood ties helped get Junior elected.
Needless to say, any of the three would be a big improvement over the Marxist currently sitting in the White House.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Obama did this on purpose to redirect our focus.
Here is the stealth attack.
"President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.
Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification."
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/209283-obamas-assault-on-america
Debra I'm not sure if I missed this on here but this has me just speechless. I just had to share this with you.
"What makes killing wrong?
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong1,2,
Franklin G Miller2
+ Author Affiliations
1Department of Philosophy and Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
2Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Correspondence to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Box 90432, Durham, NC 27708, USA; ws66@duke.edu
Received 2 November 2011
Revised 13 December 2011
Accepted 16 December 2011
Published Online First 19 January 2012
Abstract
What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities. This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality."
They are trying to justify euthanizing disabled patients to harvest their organs.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/19/medethics-2011-100351.full
Post a Comment