E-mail regarding Obama

[Guest Steelharp]

I checked Snopes.com before I posted this... nothing there, so...

----------------------------------------

Subject: FYI........OBAMA

Some of you will recognize the name of Bill Brown. He is a highly respected

retired member of the Billy Graham team. And I am blessed to count him as a

friend whom I've known a long time. (His wife is the British actress who was in

one of the Billy Graham films. She is also an author.) So I take his assessment

of Obama very seriously and for that reason accept his challenge to pass this

on. I share his concern about the 'rock star' image Obama has

and watch with growing concern at the celebrity status the media has foisted

upon him. I hope this email informs you in a wise way.

Helen K. Hosier 3117 Almond Dr., Flower Mound, TX 75028

972-539-4250 cell 972-333-3870 fax 603-250-6856

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.

His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea

of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.

The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing.

Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and

particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the

charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.

Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans

out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while

riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.

Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

· He voted against banning partial ' birth abortion.

· He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

· Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

· Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

· His religious convictions are very murky.

· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad.

· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a

conference with all Muslim nations.

· Opposed the Patriot Act.

· First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

· Supports universal health-care.

· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.

· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

· Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

· He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax

· He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax

· He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

· Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes

some doing.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think

that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then

you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like

most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with

his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on,

before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great

Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know

it. Inaction is action. If you agree this is important, pass it on. The

mainstream media will not do it for you!

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Obama sucks and he's a coke addict....he should drop out of the race....

[Marswolf]

Actually, there a bunch of things that he and I seem to agree on. OTOH, there are some things where we are diametrically opposite.

[Guest EasilyObsessed]

Obama sucks and he's a coke addict....he should drop out of the race....

He should drop out so Hillary can get the nomination? And regarding the coke...at least he is open about it and doesnt try to hide it.

Actually, there a bunch of things that he and I seem to agree on. OTOH, there are some things where we are diametrically opposite.

x2. The three issues for me are universal health care, second amendment, and immigration.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

· In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

· Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

· Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

Fine with me. The "War On Drugs" is a misguided waste of money. If people want to destroy their bodies, let them. If they turn to crime to support their habit, throw the book at them.

· His religious convictions are very murky.

· He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad.

· Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a

conference with all Muslim nations.

Meeting with our enemies is not necessarily a bad thing. I seem to recall Reagan meeting with Gorbachev a few times. Guess we should have been scared of him, too.

· Opposed the Patriot Act.

Fine with me.

· Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

· Supports universal health-care.

· Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

· Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

· Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

· Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

· Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

· Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.

Ah, some stuff I can tell him to screw off on.

· Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

Now that's a startling revelation!

· Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

A nice and vague claim. Based on the tone of the email, I'm guessing that the writer defines "separation of church and state" as "won't legislate Christianity."

· He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

Ah, another informative statement. Apparently there's some nationally accredited liberal-ranking organization I'm not familiar with. Or maybe it's just something Rush Limbaugh said.

I dislike the man as much as anybody. I certainly disagree with him more often than I agree, and there's no way he's getting my vote. But I can't help but roll my eyes when I see stuff like this that's so clearly put together by some Moral Majority minion. I'm not sure what scares me more: a socialist government that redistribute wealth and disarms its citizens, or a theocracy that picks some particular religion and applies its yardstick across the board.

[Guest Steelharp]

GUTTER, there is a ranking system that's "non-denominational," if you will... I can't think of it, but it does exist. That's where that comes from.

[Marswolf]

GUTTERbOY, except for the liberal rating thing, my feelings match yours right down the line. Here is a rating:

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Here's another: http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm

But I do know that theocrats scare me a lot more than liberals.

+1

Edited April 1, 2008 by Marswolf

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I'm not disputing the fact that's he quite liberal; I just think that labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are gross oversimplifications of complex issues. While categorizing things in life is a useful tool, there comes a point when it's too much, and when it comes to the liberal/conservative labeling, I get the feeling that far too many people use the labels as a substitute for actually knowing about the candidate. I don't think that someone being a "liberal" ought to be a valid reason not to vote for them. It seems like it's not far removed at all from just voting a straight ticket and not even bothering to know who the people you're voting for are.

In short, telling me that someone is the most liberal Senator just tells me that he matches some criteria that someone came up with, and without that criteria to use as a reference, the label is not very informative to me.

JMO

[Guest slothful1]

But I do know that theocrats scare me a lot more than liberals.

Not me, right now anyway, because of the system of checks & balances. There is no way the Supreme Court and Congress would allow any "theocracy" in the foreseeable future, but they are fine with leftism.

[ZenDog]

Whatever.

I don't put much stock in an e-mail from someone who prefers that our government legislate religion, which is far from what the founding fathers wanted. The religious right folks are on the same end of the governance spectrum as Osama Bin Laden & Co-- just a different brand of religion.

Which brand do you want? Ford? GM? Chrysler? Coke? Pepsi? Republicans? Islaam? Baptists? They are all imperfect and they all want to get into your pocketbook, your bedroom, and your uterus. (well, dunno about Ford, GM and your uterus....)

Don't tread on me with your religion. I am armed and I am pissed off.

[Marswolf]

Not me, right now anyway, because of the system of checks & balances. There is no way the Supreme Court and Congress would allow any "theocracy" in the foreseeable future, but they are fine with leftism.

The two most theocratic Presidents I've worked for are Carter and Bush II. Both have proven to be absolutely miserable excuses for Presidents, partly because of their religious views. Carter scared the hell out of me. Bush vetoed scientific research for religious reasons.

It will be a very cold day in hell before I vote for another candidate who makes a point of how religious he is.

[strickj]

Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.

IMO this is aimed more towards "in god we trust" and similar

[Smith]

You do realize our Founding Father's were the Moral Majority? This is more liberal propaganda conservatives have bought. That somehow religious people (by nature uneven and extreme:rolleyes:) will slowly legislate their own extremist beliefs. Isn't that what everyone does? Vote their beliefs? At least you know where they come from, unlike the "moderates". Isn't that what scares everyone about McCain? He's a moderate and you never know which side he will fall on.

This is liberal non-sense and I'm sad to say some of you have bought it.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Smith

[Marswolf]

Unfortunately, for some of these nuts you know exactly which side they will fall on. They will ignore reason and go with their beliefs even if they have to ignore reality to do that.

[Smith]

Might I add that our country has progressively gotten more secularist in it's voting as time has passed. Many issues we face today are a result of that - some good, many much worse as far as crime, criminal punishment, drugs, ect. go. IMO. It would be a hard argument to say less religious tone has been better overall for our nation. If you want to get back to the founding fathers intent, you can't ignore the religious aspects that were the foundation for their ideologies.......that would be called liberalism.

And with that the hate mongering, right wing extremist, Christian radical will now leave the thread alone.

[Mike.357]

Bush vetoed scientific research for religious reasons.

I dunno about this, I think he did it more to try to prove he is all religious.

He was thinking it would win him points.

I have a hard time believing much of anything from him.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

You do realize our Founding Father's were the Moral Majority? This is more liberal propaganda conservatives have bought. That somehow religious people (by nature uneven and extreme:rolleyes:) will slowly legislate their own extremist beliefs. Isn't that what everyone does? Vote their beliefs? At least you know where they come from, unlike the "moderates". Isn't that what scares everyone about McCain? He's a moderate and you never know which side he will fall on.

This is liberal non-sense and I'm sad to say some of you have bought it.

I have the ability to separate my personal beliefs from what I believe is good fr the country as a whole. For example, I am quite frankly disgusted by homosexuality. And yet I believe that the government should either recognize unions for everyone, or for no one.

I have never in my life used any illegal substance, nor do I have any desire to do so. All the pot smokers I've been around have been unmotivated people with no seeming desire to improve themselves. Still, that's there choice, and I do not support the continued illegality of drugs.

I always, without exception, wear my seatbelt while driving; similarly, I wouldn't think of riding my motorcycle without a helmet. But I think seatbelt and helmet laws are inappropriate.

I do believe that in many cases things have gone too far WRT to the "separation of church and state" stuff. But it seems like too many folks feel that the appropriate response is to go in the other direction, and legislate morality, and laws based solely on a particular religious belief system have no place in our society.

The gay marriage issue is a prime example of this mindset. People talk about preserving the traditional institution of marriage and so forth. But why do they feel that they need to government to sanction their union? Is it not enough that they've been joined in the eyes of God and the local community? The government shouldn't even enter into the issue IMO. From the standpoint of taxes and so forth, marriage should mean nothing. Otherwise, the government has no business making a distinction between lifestyles based solely of the teachings of religions. What goes on between consenting adults is their own damn business.

There will inevitably be people who will assert that without a religious basis for laws, there can be no law at all. This is patently false- it is quite simple to define a set of behaviors that are unacceptable for society as a whole without involving God at all, and lots of philosophers have contributed vast and detailed tomes of knowledge to his subject.

In summary, I understand why some people have come to regard "separation of church and state" as an unspeakable term for patent evil. It has quite often been wielded to emplace stupid things... but this does not mean that the concept itself is flawed. To write it off as so much BS and embrace religion-based legislation is as much of a misuse of the concept as it was when Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the government to ban astronauts from public prayer in space.

[Smith]

It is a perpetual swing. It will never stop in the middle. It will go waaaay left and then react and swing tooooo far right. It is the nature of humans to live in extremes.

[Guest slothful1]

Bush vetoed scientific research for religious reasons.

Perhaps (I think it much more likely that he did it for political reasons), but almost any veto of federal spending is a good thing IMO, no matter how dumb the reason is.

[Guest slothful1]

I have the ability to separate my personal beliefs from what I believe is good fr the country as a whole. For example, I am quite frankly disgusted by homosexuality. And yet I believe that the government should either recognize unions for everyone, or for no one.

I have never in my life used any illegal substance, nor do I have any desire to do so. All the pot smokers I've been around have been unmotivated people with no seeming desire to improve themselves. Still, that's there choice, and I do not support the continued illegality of drugs.

I always, without exception, wear my seatbelt while driving; similarly, I wouldn't think of riding my motorcycle without a helmet. But I think seatbelt and helmet laws are inappropriate.

I concur 100% with everything said here.

I do believe that in many cases things have gone too far WRT to the "separation of church and state" stuff. But it seems like too many folks feel that the appropriate response is to go in the other direction, and legislate morality, and laws based solely on a particular religious belief system have no place in our society.

I agree that religion is not a legitimate basis for laws under the U.S. Constitution. However, I cringe at talk of "legislating morality", because ALL legislation (traffic ordinances, tax laws, housing codes, etc.) is based on morality of some kind. The only question is whose morality gets to be reflected in the law.

The gay marriage issue is a prime example of this mindset. People talk about preserving the traditional institution of marriage and so forth. But why do they feel that they need to government to sanction their union? Is it not enough that they've been joined in the eyes of God and the local community? The government shouldn't even enter into the issue IMO. From the standpoint of taxes and so forth, marriage should mean nothing. Otherwise, the government has no business making a distinction between lifestyles based solely of the teachings of religions. What goes on between consenting adults is their own damn business.

I think the only area where the government should have any interest in this is being able to correctly identify heirs or beneficiaries (for example, if someone's group health insurance contract allows coverage of a spouse, there has to be some objective, demonstrable definition of "spouse" in order for the contract to be enforced).

There will inevitably be people who will assert that without a religious basis for laws, there can be no law at all. This is patently false- it is quite simple to define a set of behaviors that are unacceptable for society as a whole without involving God at all, and lots of philosophers have contributed vast and detailed tomes of knowledge to his subject.

Sure. But those acceptable behaviors are still defined by some commonly-held subjective morality. It's no more or less valid than a religious basis, except that in this country we have a prohibition of a government religion. As an aside, it's worth noting that some nations that do have a national tax-supported religion, like the UK, are still a lot more culturally secular than the U.S.

As I indicated, I agree that one's personal religious disapproval of an action does not justify creating a law against it. However, I also think that some people perceive certain political positions (opposition to abortion being the biggest one) as necessarily being religious when they aren't.

[BryanP]

Bush vetoed scientific research for religious reasons.

Yep. I want to see him and the others who vote that way take a pledge that they and their families will never avail themselves of any medical therapies developed through those "immoral" research methodologies.

"Yes, we have a cure for Alzheimer's. No, you can't have it."

[Marswolf]

There are a lot of pretty much universally recognized concepts that laws can be based on. Pretty much all cultures and religions even atheism, agree that murdering, stealing, etc. are wrong and should be legally proscribed. These are matters that legitimately deserve to be the subject of legislation and laws.

But other issues have a deep division and in my view should not be legislated either for or against. Most of these are what I call busybody laws that try to force ones personal views on others. They are often based on religious views, or a narrow minded idea that you have to lead other people to the "correct" actions. Two groups who do this are the extremist religionists and the extremist liberals.

GUTTERbOY, good post. I can't think of anything you wrote that I disagree with.

Our founding fathers were definitely not part of the so-called moral majority as we define that term today. That's nonsense. This is evident to people who read the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson, or Madison's notes on the debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or Washington's private correspondence.

While they were religious men, they went out of their way to limit the influence of religion on the new nation. Probably the most famous of this is in Jefferson's comments on the necessity of a division of church and state. It is an extreme perversion of reality to suggest that they tried to write their religious views into the Constitution or the laws of the country, as undoubtedly the "Moral Majority" would and does try to do today. The founding fathers recognized universal truths but tried to write a Constitution to prevent the majority from forcing its views on minorities. That really is much of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about. You don't get your way just because you are in the majority. Somewhere along the line that concept has been corrupted by fanatics on both the left and right.

[Guest slothful1]

Regarding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

If you think it's good to use the coercive power of government to forcibly extort money from private citizens to fund your pet causes, so be it. But if so, be consistent and don't ever go spouting off about freedom or government exceeding its constitutional bounds. Theocracy and this kind of socialism are just two sides of the same totalitarian coin, IMO.

[Marswolf]

Regarding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

If you think it's good to use the coercive power of government to forcibly extort money from private citizens to fund your pet causes, so be it. But if so, be consistent and don't ever go spouting off about freedom or government exceeding its constitutional bounds. Theocracy and this kind of socialism are just two sides of the same totalitarian coin, IMO.

Yeah, but if they are going to extort money from us (hint: they are) I''d like to see the money going to medical research with tremendous potential. I'll bet you wouldn't have a problem with them extorting money to teach mindless garbage like "Creation Science."

[Smith]

Yeah, but if they are going to extort money from us (hint: they are) I''d like to see the money going to medical research with tremendous potential. I'll bet you wouldn't have a problem with them extorting money to teach mindless garbage like "Creation Science."

There is exactly zero science or proof that science can come from embryonic stem cells. However, great advancements have been made using the many other resources of stem cells. The embryonic issue is really a ploy to find a market for abortion research thus ensuring the abortion issue. Not to get that whole issue going, but that is really what the so called "stem" cell issue is about. I have no problem with current stem cell research, but the wanting government to buy aborted babies for "research" that is unecessary is troubling.