About Me

Name: Maxstake
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama Opposes California's Marriage Protection Act

Posted by Maxstake on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:07:29 PM
 No surprise here, it is a very basic "modus operandi" of the Secular Progressive Communists, if it will in anyway hurt America "Do It!".
 
Always make things racial to better divide and concur,
 
 always tax & tax to better divide and control the population,
 
always take control of everything such as Health Care,
 
always Blame America,
 
always Gut the Military,
 
always lie about the economy and do everything to hurt the economy-don't drill for oil-don’t use nuclear power-use food grains for ethanol but don’t feed starving people,
 
etc, etc.
 
Maxstake

Who could have guessed that this ultra-liberal, pro-abortion, anti-war Democrat/Socialist would oppose it?
 
Obama Opposes California's Marriage Protection Act
 
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has come out in opposition to the California ballot initiative that would amend the state’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In a letter sent to the Alice B. Toklas L.G.B.T. Democratic Club, a San Francisco gay rights group, Obama declared: “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

The California Marriage Protection Act, which will appear on the state’s November ballot, asserts: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The move to amend California’s Constitution came after the May 15 decision by the state’s Supreme Court that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.

While Obama opposes the initiative, he remains opposed to same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. He does support civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Obama expressed opposition to the amendment, on the ballot as Proposition 8, because “as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told The Times.

Obama’s presumptive Republican rival John McCain announced his support for the initiative last month.

A Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll conducted shortly after the California Supreme Court decision found that 54 percent of registered voters surveyed supported the amendment, and 35 percent said they opposed it.

source: Insider Report from Newsmax.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poll Shows Ammericans Afraid of Obama as Commander-in-Chief

Posted by Maxstake on Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:53:28 AM
Both Carter and Clinton as Commander-in-Chief's gutted the military, ignoring their Primary Constitutional Job to Protect America.  Luckily under Carter we were not at war, while Clinton chose to ignore the fact that War had been declared on us by the Islamic World, the build up from the Regain and Bush Administrations has made the difference despite Clintons reductions. Today we are faced with a far different problem due to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to not only maintain necessary levels of military equipment to but to continue to develop and produce more and better capabilities
 
What Obama has promised will not only fail to maintain even current requirements but will give our enemies TIME to develop new and better capabilities that may exceed our current lead in this area. So not only will he SURRENDER in Iraq but he plans to DISARM America through attrition.
 
Electing Obama, who has promised that he not only doesn't plan fulfill his primary function as Commander-in-Chief, but will DISARM us as well is absolute Madness!! 
 
The Iconoclast Conservative
 
 
 
Poll Shows Americans Afraid of Obama as Commander-in-Chief
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Friday, July 18, 2008

On the night of January 20, 2009, a new commander-in-chief will leave the inaugural podium, parade, and festivities for the Oval Office. A national security staff ready with the latest “threat briefing” will join him there. On his desk, they will place a thick binder of reports, each focusing on real or emerging threats to our national security. In the quiet of the Oval Office -- in the presence of these stern-faced, deadly serious briefers and advisers -- Barack I. Obama, should he be the next president, will come face-to-face with reality.

Americans are afraid of this scenario, Barack I.E. Obama as commander-in-chief. The New York Times and CBS News released a poll this week; in it, Americans answered detailed questions about this possibility.

The poll’s answers shocked the strategists at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago. An intensive international travel schedule for Obama and a refocus of the campaign’s message on defense and foreign policy speaks to this fear.

The poll says Americans consider him lacking in the abilities necessary to run the armed services. Conversely, the polls show John McCain blows Obama out of the water as a good commander-in-chief. Forty-six percent of respondents thought McCain would very likely “be effective” as commander-in-chief, as opposed to only 24 percent saying the same of Obama. In fact, 36 percent think it is “not likely” Obama will be effective in the position.

Obama’s talents lie in his gift of oratory and his ability to move people with emotion, but this does not necessarily make for a good commander. The chief executive’s job requires forward thinking, realistic assessments of the world’s threats, and the maturity to make judgments in a crisis.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, an aircraft carrier, is now under construction in Hampton Roads, Va. It will be ready to join the fleet in 2015, replacing a carrier launched 47 years ago. Do we know that the USS Ford will be needed in 2015?

No, we do not. But can we afford to bet against it?

Obama thinks so. According to his own campaign literature, he is willing to let the USS Ford, and many more of tomorrow’s defense technologies, rust at the pier.

The decision to build the aircraft carrier is based on the concept of preparing America for the next war to come. Commanders must anticipate the evil designs of irrational lunatics. It’s always a tricky business, trying to anticipate future unknowns. Nevertheless, the president’s oath is to protect and defend the United States.

A president who hasn’t had any experience in military strategic planning is going to find himself in deep trouble if he finds his strategic armories empty in the face of an advancing enemy.

A review of Obama’s national defense plans offers insight into his preparedness to meet today’s and tomorrow’s defense realities. Obama makes a variety of claims which we think would dramatically weaken America if enacted. The Obama plans include cutting tens of billions of dollars of the Defense Department budget, and the development of no new weapons in space to protect satellites and strategic assets. He plans cuts in missile defense systems, slowing our development of future combat systems, developing no new nuclear weapons, and negotiating with Russia to take our ICBMs off what he calls “hair-trigger alert”. He advocates deep cuts in our nuclear program.

Not only does Obama have dangerous disarmament plans for America, he sorely lacks in experience. Besides being a junior senator, he has not been on any of the major defense committees. He has no previous hands-on experience with the military nor has he spent time with the men and women of our armed forces.

There are hundreds of weapon systems that could, under the quick-to-cut hand of Obama, be eliminated before they had the chance to prove themselves. If Obama had been in charge when the MAN Abrams Main Battle Tank was under development (a huge financial problem for the military) he would have cut it. But its developers persisted, and dollars that might have been considered “waste” by Obama were spent until the MAN became the most lethal, most respected, most effective tank on the battlefield.

Ask any Abrams crewmember who has survived direct hits by explosive shells and rocket-propelled grenades if he would have cancelled the Abrams, and the answer will be a resounding “No!”

Obama’s perfect future vision enables him to scrap defense programs, even as our nation’s enemies prepare very nasty projectiles to hurtle across continents and oceans.

Will he be able to effectively deal with crazed terrorists and power-hungry leaders with nuclear weapons in hand? Recent polls show Americans are nervous about Obama as commander-in-chief, and rightly so. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

STICKING-UP FOR HIS BRETHREN! ! ! !

Posted by Maxstake on Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:07:16 AM
 
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HELP FROM HIS BRETHREN! ! ! !

Posted by Maxstake on Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:59:16 AM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the Left can't get it Right

Posted by Maxstake on Friday, July 18, 2008 12:47:26 PM
The editors of the Patriot always put it together in the best and most important way. Whish that I was half as articulate as they and these authors.
 
 
 
 
 

THE FOUNDATION

"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." -Samuel Adams

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Why the Left can't get it Right

By Mark Alexander

Ask a liberal about some manifestation of his worldview-for example, why he supports charlatans like Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jean-Francois Kerry, et al., and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I feel..."

Ask a conservative about what he believes, or why he does or doesn't support John McCain, and he invariably predicates his response with, ">John McCain, and he invariably predicates his response with, "Because I think..."

It has always been easier to "feel" rather than "think," and that is why our national culture, and by extension, national politics (see Democrat Party Platforms) reflect only the most rudimentary remnants of the guiding principles established by our Founders. Of course, though Republican Party Platforms are more consistent with our Founding principles, Ronald Reagan was the last Republican president to stand firmly in support of those principles.

Liberalism tends to appeal to the worst of human instincts-greed, envy, laziness, victimization and every line of division. Its practitioners appeal to constituent "feelings," and they thus convert emotions into political capital.

Leftist pathology is deserving of its own category on the short list of personality disorders, and liberal politicians have one uniformly defining characteristic: hypocrisy.

Liberal politicos advocate populist themes but are consummate elitists. They feign concern for the plight of the poor while hobnobbing with the richest of the rich. They are charitable with everyone's income but their own. They decry school vouchers yet send their children to the finest academies. They hate SUVs, unless they are expensive imports. They advocate mass transit but commute on private jets. They express concern for the homeless yet maintain multiple manors.

Liberals advocate diversity, unless your views don't comport with their own doctrines of moral relativism. They want to preserve nature and the natural order but advocate homosexual ">homosexual "marriage." They oppose the death penalty for the most heinous of criminal sociopaths, but they support the execution of unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims ">unborn children in their mothers' wombs. They believed that one nut who bombs an abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They called 9/11 victims "Little Eichmanns" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They "support our troops" while calling for retreat and surrender.

Liberals call for "change" but are firmly committed to the status quo. They oppose nuclear power production while complaining about ">"global warming." They call for racial, ethnic and religious harmony, but they rally constituencies by fomenting division and hate. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny.

Indeed, liberals have turned the wisdom of their iconic sovereigns inside out.

Then: "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961

Now: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."

Then: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -Martin L. King, Address from the Lincoln Memorial, 1963

Now: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin."

Liberals have replaced the original Constitution with their so-called "Living Constitution" so that they can insist on viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens-except, of course, the "freedom of religion" part, where they opt to censor Christianity while imposing secular atheism. They advocate a ">"Wall of Separation" between church and state, but they tear down any obstacles between your income and the state. Of course, they also insist on viewing the Second Amendment through a pinhole.

Liberals protest economic recession, all the while suppressing economic growth with evermore taxes and regulations. Most of them are card-carrying members of the ignoble ranks of ">"useful idiots," those Western apologists for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Of course, that card reads: "Member, Democrat National Committee."

I have no doubt that you've already come up with a list of additional examples of liberal hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there isn't enough bandwidth on the Internet to compile a comprehensive list here. (Feel free to post additional examples on our reader comments page.)

Liberal and conservative worldviews often collide for this reason: Disciplined conservatives put God first, family and country second and themselves third, while liberals tend to put themselves first, their country last, and serve gods made in their image. This is the most defining philosophical distinction between these two groups.

As we approach the next presidential election, Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle-">Leftmedia types suggest that most Americans are in the middle-"moderate" or "centrist." But political researchers are finding that we are in fact a deeply divided nation, with many voters strongly identifying with either conservative or liberal doctrines.

Let's hope and pray that more of our fellow Americans, those guided by their feelings, will think better of this process and vote on right-minded principles. Otherwise, it will be difficult to seat candidates who, in the words of Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of ">Samuel Adams, possess the qualities of "wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth..."

Quote of the week

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -William F. Buckley Jr.

On cross-examination

"Before government hijacked charity in the form of the New Deal and Great Society, compassion and charity began at home. People were to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit prisoners, care for widows and orphans and love their enemies. Those were biblical commands to individuals, not government. Democrat politicians see things differently. Apparently believing there aren't enough caring people, they want compassion to originate in Washington, depriving it of its true meaning. They define compassion as big and ever-growing government and a guaranteed check forever with no expectation-or requirement-the recipient will ever better his or her circumstances." -Cal Thomas

Open query

"Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes-one rich, one poor-both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other?" -Ronald Reagan

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two Major Threats to America Today

Posted by Maxstake on Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:44:41 AM
 
 
 
     Not to ignore the foreign threats and the need for us to be involved in Iraq, Europe, Asia, etc, there is however, two greater threats to America from within that seem to me to be far more dangerous and will make our involvement in the rest of the world mute.
 
 I. The first threat dates from the 1920's and the attempt by the Socialists and Communist to take over America and Europe by bringing down those governments as part of the world wide Bolshevik Revolution.  From Historians like Blair Coan and his book "The Red Web" we know that the Socialists and communists failure to achieve their goals through nation wide strikes, etc, met and assumed the name "Progressives" and formed their legal arm the "American Civil Liberties Union", the ACLU. They infiltrated both parties, but had their greatest success with the Democrat Party. Even though there was some move to defeat there efforts, they vary successfully hid their agenda and under their new party name "Progressives" managed to  move into governments of all levels from local cities to the federal government.
 
With WWII and Hitler's attack on the USSR, suddenly Stalin becomes Uncle Joe and Communism is acceptable, even to the point that senior advisors to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman are Communists. Their strong influence at the federal level results in two vary serious mistakes. Giving Eastern Europe to Russia and giving China to Mao. We now know that McCarthy was right, thanks to Authors like M. Stanton Evans and his book "Blacklisted by History". Some of the "New Names" of the 40's & 50's were "Americans for Progress", 'Progressive citizens of America", "The Progressive Party' and etc.  While some of the the most obvious communists at State and in other departments were allowed to reassign, they did in fact stay in government and only moved to another department or to our UN Representation, and some few were convicted of Treason.
 
Today's Communists/Socialists no longer appear to take orders from Moscow and are now under the banner "Progressives" or "Secular Progressives" and have moved to turn America into a Communist/Socialist State. The Democratic party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has surrendered to these "Progressives/Secular Progressives". Note that Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Obama, Boxer, to name a few have said they are "Progressives" or "Secular Progressives" and the programs they support, speeches, etc are the same as those espoused by the Bolsheviks. Government owns everything, makes all decisions, provides all health care, what you can eat, what your children learn in school, etc, etc. I recommend that a look at Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson's Books regarding a 5th Column in America, Kenneth R. Timmerman's "Shadow Warriors", and John Bolton's "Surrender Is Not an Option". While these last two books do not specifically point out that the "Traitors" they write about are "Progressives/Secular Progressives", they do note the sabotage to at least the current administration, that these people are all so called "Democrats" and were appointed by Carter or Clinton, and are members of the "new" Democrat Party controlled by the "Progressives/Secular Progressives" and the likes of the ACLU, and Moveon.org.
 
 II. The Second threat is the Muslim Invasion of the U. S. and Europe. All Arabic and Persian Muslim Nations from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia are enemies of all Infidel Nations. Their desire to create a world wide "Caliphate" has been declared by Ben Laden and others. These people are not the poor, downtrodden, suppressed religious peoples who immigrated in the past. They are well educated, if not wealth at least well off and completely support the Wahhabi Mosques and teachings.   
 
Some 25-30 years ago a huge Immigration of Islamic Muslims began to the U.S. They settled mostly in the major cities of the U.S. and were sponsored by the Saudi's for the most part. I quote from the World Tribune "Because this country does not "discriminate" in its Immigration Policy, we have several millions of Muslims in this country (the exact number is disputed but we can safely say there is at least 3 millions and others suggest it might be as high as 6 million)".
 
Beyond a doubt there is Fanatic Muslim 5th Columns operating in the United States today. The very fact that the 9/11 Suicide Bombers could operate effectively is proof. There is no way these men had the knowledge to travel, collect the necessary information and put their plan into effect with out the support of a 5th Column in place and operating throughout our country.
    
There are 2,000  Wahhabi Mosques in the United States, at each of these there is at least one Wahhabi Imam all primarily supported by Saudi Arabia and King Fahd himself (Note: the Saudi's are the primary support of Wahhabi Mosques in Europe and England as well). We know that the Wahhabi Mosques and Imams in the Islamic World, Europe, and England have been teaching the Koran Demand that all non-believers are less then human and to kill them is a good thing to do. Note: Even the "So Called" Moderate Muslims donate to the Mosques in support of Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc and their children must attend a "Madrasa" that teaches "Suicide Jihad". 
 
To understand our own danger, we only need to take note of the aggressive Muslim moves in England giving Muslims Special consideration not given to any other religions. Such as the "Family courts" that may be usurped by a Muslim court and use "Sharia Law", that Ghettos of Muslims are segregated and off limits to non-Muslims and that in most European States the Judo/Christian populations will be overwhelmed by the growing Muslim "Birth rate" and immigration.
 
In our own country CAIR a Muslim Legal Arm like the Communist/Socialist ACLU uses U. S. Law to achieve similar special privileges. In the State of Washington a Ghetto of Muslims are seeking the right to substitute "Sharia Law" for U. S. law. In some of our schools with help from the "Progressive/Secular Democrats" they even teach two weeks of "understanding Muslims" where children in the 5-7th grades, dress like Muslims, take a Muslim Name and study the Koran. In a school in San Diego, CA again with the help of "Progressive School Officials" at 1 pm every afternoon the classes shut down for a hour of Muslim Prayer and Study. This has since been discontinued but it is emblematic of the constant attempts to give Muslims special privileges.
 
It is my belief that the 5th Columns of Muslims and "Progressives/Secular Progressives" are allied in their war on our Judo Christian Democracy, America.
 
My Question is "What is America to do about this problem and where are the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, all our so called Watch Dogs? A simple goggle search and reading the books I have recommended will show you the problem.
 
Tags: 5th Columns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »