Palin: Joe the Plumber Did What the Media Couldn't

Maybe that would be more appropriate to say, "Joe the Plumber did what the media wouldn't."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize Barack Obama's (and most other Democrats) ideology as socialist.

Journalists in the media are more than educated enough to recognize progressive taxation as Marxist socialism. The reason they don't (except for this rare and commendable exception) is because they, like the Democrats, want socialism...but at the same time realize most Americans aren't going to fall for it if you call it what it is.

Thank the Lord for Joe the Plumber and his courage.

It's a wonderful thing when pure, unadulterated truth shines through the muddy waters created by the Left and their allies in the "mainstream" media.

"Somehow Joe accomplished what the rest of us have not been able to accomplish, even the media could not accomplish this, but Joe did. He got our opponent to finally state his intentions in plain language. Senator Obamas says that he wants to spread the wealth."

Calif. Teachers Outraged: Dues Used to Oppose Marriage Protection Amdt

According to OneNewsNow, a lot of teachers in California are outraged that their money paid in union dues to the California Teachers Association is being used to oppose the protection of marriage in California.

The Pacific Justice Institute says CTA has spent $1.2 million opposing California's marriage protection amendment, Proposition 8.

Many teachers who understand that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are angry that their union dues are being used to fund things they morally oppose.

They're not sitting still for this, though.

From OneNewsNow:

Dacus also stated CTA's opposition to Prop. 8 has angered many public school teachers whose CTA membership fees have been used to fund the opposition campaign. In response, his group has launched a project called ChooseCharity.org.

"And what we are doing...is educating and defending the rights of teachers to opt completely out of their union and give all of their union dues, every single penny of it, instead...to a charity that's in agreement with their faith -- and our phone is ringing off the hook," he adds.

The Yes on 8 campaign is running a series of ads which shows in startling clarity how far this radical pro-homosexual agenda runs.

It runs not only to the freedom of homosexuals to destroy their own bodies and souls, but seeks to hijack marriage itself in their quest for legitimacy of their sexual practices. It also paints a bulls eye on the children, because activists understand that if they can indoctrinate children at a young and impressionable age to accept this immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice, they have gained a lot of mileage in avoiding societal disapproval of their behavior.

Despite the prejudicial language California Attorney General Jerry Brown used to rewrite the measure, Yes on 8's ads are cutting through the pro-homosexual propaganda and allowing average Californians what's really at stake.

Darkness is dispelled by light, and the light of truth is finally starting to shine a little in California--and the cockroaches are scrambling for cover.

Interview Shows Obama Radical Ideas on Constitution and Weath Redistribution

Below is a video/audio recording of Barack Obama in a 2001 interview talking about a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution.

There is also a transcript of the audio available here, thanks to Power Line News.

This interview is a remarkable insight into what Obama thinks about taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to someone else (he obviously knows better than you who needs your money and how it should be spent).

Notice how Obama thinks the constraints the Founders put on government through the Constitution are a "tragedy" and that he regrets that even radical Supreme Court makeups have failed to "break free" from those constraints the founders put there.

Some of those limits are exemplified in comments like these from the Founders:

A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

Notice Obama doesn't talk about whether it's right or wrong to take one person's property and give it to another.

Notice Obama doesn't even so much talk about whether, since we are legally blocked from doing this by the Constitution, we should work on an amendment to the constitution, but rather how best to ignore and get around the Constitution, either through the courts, or legislatively, or administratively.

The sad irony here is that wealth redistribution is already happening, and has been in this country for decades. Obama and the socialists like him are only dissatisfied at the slow pace of it and the meager level of redistribution--meager in terms of where they'd like to see it, at least.

Obama's ideas of wealth redistribution are unAmerican (i.e. they run counter to the ideals of our Constitution and our American heritage of personal responsibility and private property rights). Rather, they are Marxist ideas. They are the ideas of nations that have opposed us and sought to destroy us for decades.

How can we possibly be considering allowing someone who believes this unAmerican rot to lead the country?


TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.


In this newly uncovered radio interview from 2001, Barack Obama charts a 'reparative' strategy for wealth redistribution

Obama Opposes Gun Rights

Barack Obama has stated repeatedly during this presidential campaign his support for the Second Amendment Rights of Americans, but his past record and his use of clever, but non-specific terminology, say otherwise. When he talks about “common sense” gun laws he means things like required trigger locks on all guns in the home, which would make those guns mostly useless if actually needed for defense. The following are some of the other “common sense” measures he has supported:
• Obama voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
Illinois Senate, SB 1195, 3/13/03
• Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Politico, 03/31/08.
• Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes
Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
• Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent
Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
• Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05 •
Obama opposes Right-to-Carry laws
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08, Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04
(NRA-ILA)



Naturally, Obama supporters will call the video above ridiculous "scare tactics." Look at Obama's record and decide for yourself if you, a gun owner and advocate of the right of self-defense, have a reason to be concerned about what an Obama administration will mean to us. Consider also the likelihood that Obama will have a Congress lead by Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank and many other notorious gun-grabbers. The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right of ultimate authority over government, by threat of armed revolt if they should seek to usurp authority not granted by the Constitution. Obama, supported by George Soros, will seek to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights. He may do it incrementally with "common sense" restrictions, but the goal is a disarmed citizenry with all power centralized in Washington.

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate

Last update: 1:06 a.m. EDT Oct. 15, 2008
CHICAGO, Oct 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is the text of an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today by Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:
Fellow Sportsman,
Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.
I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama.
Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.
Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?
By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from an organization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)" talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2nd Amendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to take your guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says about Obama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitists who subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a state of affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthy upper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. The AHSA is not your friend, never will be.
In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gone nose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot even begin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I know sees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox who is easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. The Obama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting what he wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him.
That's the Barack Obama I know.
The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.
WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org
SOURCE Illinois State Rifle Association
http://www.isra.org

Expose on the Pro-Homosexual Gill Action Fund

This video report (below) has a lot of good information about the very active and very radical Gill Action Fund, a pro-homosexual funding group founded by homosexual activist Tim Gill.

The Atlantic also has a lengthy report on Tim Gill and the Gill Action Fund from March 2007.

Focus on the Family Action has a comprehensive report on Tim Gill here.

Here is a list of people who are working with Tim Gill across the country to push the homosexual agenda and hijack marriage in states like Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

They are hitting California's Proposition 8 marriage protection amendment hard, and big-dollar donors include billionaire George Soros.

Though Gill avoids publicity, likely because his radical agenda works better when good people aren't alerted to it, he made an appearance at the Democrat Convention in Denver to encourage Democrats to dig deep in their pockets to defeat pro-family candidates with pro-homosexual candidates.

Incidentally, we have a pro-homosexual group in South Dakota called "Equality South Dakota" that is working to elect pro-homosexual candidates. They endorsed candidates in the primary election and gave campaign contributions to some, and have again endorsed candidates in the general election and have given them campaign contributions. A number of those candidates are in the Rapid City area and include the following: Democrat Bethany Wojahn House Dist. 32, Democrat Eric Abrahamson House Dist. 32, Democrat Jeff Nelson House Dist. 33, Democrat Dennis Finch Senate Dist. 33, Republican Craig Tieszen Senate Dist. 34, Democrat Curtis Marquardt House Dist. 35, and Democrat Fern Johnson House Dist. 35.

I do not know for sure whether Equality South Dakota is officially aligned with and supported by the Gill Action Fund.

The Gill Action fund was involved in fighting South Dakota's marriage protection amendment, Amendment C, in 2006. You can find information on that here. Gill Action Fund was responsible for 35% of the opposition funds against Amendment C in South Dakota, and 40% overall in eight states in 2006 (see page 14).

That same year in 2006, Republican Stan Adelstein, who is running for South Dakota Dist. 32 Senate this year against Independent Elli Schwiesow and Democrat Tom Katus, hosted an event at his house to defeat Amendment C featuring special guest Patrick Guerriero from the Gill Action Fund.

You may not know his name, but you should.

Multi-millionaire and homosexual activist Tim Gill is leading a small group of incredibly wealthy, elite political donors in an attempt to buy legitimacy for homosexuality. They are quietly bankrolling anti-marriage efforts and targeting conservative state legislative candidates for defeat in order to promote a radical redefinition of gender, family and marriage.

This CBN News report, which aired in April, features an interview with Focus Action's Carrie Gordon Earll.

For more on Tim Gill, read the Citizen magazine article, "In the image of Gill."