Obamageddon

All hail, All hail, bow to the Emperor lest you be punished. Get ready America, the Messiah has taken his throne and his minions are in place. As I said before the election, people are too stupid to realize what they just voted for. In some sick way I am happy and look forward to the years to come. America wanted Socialism, so let them experience Socialism. They wanted a friend of the enemy in the White House, so let them see the result. Unfortunately Americans' often need to learn the hard way that they made a mistake. Let's just hope that the damage done can in some way be reversed.

Why did America choose to blindly follow this man and his party off the cliff? How could America be so ignorant you might ask? It was a simple decision made by simple people. In the minds of the voters the decision panned out like this; Times are bad, Republicans in Congress, Republican President, they are to blame, time to switch teams, they will produce the "change." As ill-conceived this logic may be, despite how down right dangerous it is, it is how they think. Well, you will absolutely get the "change" America, no doubt about it.

Who's to blame for this horrible turn of events you might ask? That's easy, it is the fault of the Republicans and a horrible Republican candidate. If there is one good thing that has come out of this tragedy that is Obama it is the fact that Republicans are forced to re-group. This is the wake up call to all those pathetic excuses for conservatives in Washington. If Republicans actually ACTED like Republicans during the last eight years we might have stood a chance. We spent like liberals and dragged our feet like liberals, so how can we expect Americans' to distinguish us from the left? It is time for the Washington right to go back to their roots of conservatism. It is time to show the stark contrast between capitalists and socialists. It is a shame that we had to be backed into a corner to realize just how far we have strayed from our principles. It is even more sad that we will HAVE to fight socialism as it will be forced upon us every day for the next four years. Thank god it isn't a filibuster proof congress, so we might be able to get in their way enough to slow them down.

If we make it to the next election, I am optimistic. America will see exactly what the Democrats are, and more importantly what Obama is. He will not be able to win re-election using the same moronic strategies and catch phrases he did this time. No more "change" signs will be waving, no "yes we can" crap. He won't be a change and everyone will have already seen what "they can" do. The Bush card has been played to extinction, so there goes a golden key for the Democrats. They can't blame every last thing on the Republicans because there aren't any. All the blame rests on their shoulders. America will finally come down off their Obama high and realize that the miracles they were promised weren't delivered. During the next four years it is the Republicans opportunity to show the country just what conservatism is and is not.





I'm Drew D. and that's the truth.

Vote Obama........Or Else

O.K. folks, let me lay it out for all of you who are just overwhelmed with this election mumbo jumbo. What we are being told by the left and the rest of the Communist wing of America is that if we don't bow down and let Obama waltz into the White House that there will be hell to pay. In other words, it's an attempt to extort the nation. No greater example of liberal thuggery if there ever was one.

The point is, if you DON'T stand down America, and you get in the chosen one's way, it will be your ass. Just shut up and take it, we know what's best for you, is the message from the left. How dare you challenge the Messiah Joe the Plumber? How dare ANYONE challenge the great one? Coming from a group of people that insist on calling the right a bunch of fascists, this seems to be a tad hypocritical. In fact, this entire Communist campaign for Obama defines fascism. Dominating the media, destroying decenters, and coercing the public, yeah, sounds pretty synonymous with the "F" word to me. Hitler came to power the exact same way Obama will. In fact Hitler, Obama, and the entire leftist party are quite similar. All represent the Socialist party, all promote ideological fascism, and both came to power through media domination and propaganda machines. Crazy statement? Too bad, I haven't been silenced, YET. I say yet, because the fascism of Obama is soon to come. Just wait until the "Fairness Doctrine" gets through. In which talk radio is silenced, Fox News is shut down, and every avenue of descent is successfully squashed. We can't have people speaking out against the Emperor now can we?

The biggest hypocrisy of this entire campaign is based on something you all might have been hearing a lot about lately, race. Using the "racist" tactic is a very old trick of the left. They use this in defence of virtually every issue that has legitimate opposition. Opposing anything from immigration policy to affirmative action will automatically brand you as a racist. However, not supporting Obama is the most popular reason for them to give you this label. If you question the fact that this guy is the most dangerous, inexperienced, Communist wacko ever, your just a racist. Let me tell you who is racist, black people. Before you all flip out hear me out. 96% of all blacks are voting for Obama, I'm sure their love for his policies are their only motivation. Do you think if 96% of white people were voting for McCain that they all wouldn't be labeled redneck racists? Do you think that if all whites threatened to riot if McCain didn't get elected there wouldn't be public outrage? My assertion that blacks are far more racist than whites is not justified by simply this fact. I constantly hear black people refer to whites as "that white girl," or, "that white dude." So your saying if I walk around saying "black girl" this and "black guy" that, that nobody would say anything? If I gave a white man a job over a black man even though the black man was far more qualified I would be racist. But if I give the far less qualified black man a job over the white man, I'm a tolerant, open-minded liberal. You can't find me one black comedian that can do a set without at least one white joke. All too many base their entire show on a black/white comparison. So if a white comedian was up there making fun of black people nobody would say anything? I hear more hateful remarks about white people than I do anything else, but that's considered "humorous." Racism is wrong no matter what color the person is who espouses it. Obama is the biggest supporter of playing the race card. He can't go one second without "reminding" us that he is black. This coming from a man who is the most racist of all. "White mans greed runs a world in need," I believe the quote is. His wife is an overtly racist separatist as well, if you read her college thesis you will understand.

So make sure you Vote Obama, because if you don't blacks will riot. Just obey, and accept the change that we all need so badly.

I'm Drew D. and that's the truth, and I guess I can now be called racist.

Liberals DO Hate America

Unlike Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C) I do NOT apologize for saying what he has already said. He is now trying to back track and say "he didn't mean it that way." Well I DO mean it that way, because it is a fact. Anyone with a sliver of brain power should recognize that liberals not only hate America, but brag about it. Hating this country is one of their party platforms for god sake. Their hatred is what fuels their sick, twisted, and treasonous ideologies. Wrong you say? Crazy am I? Well let's take a peak at what the Emperor has to say on the subject shall we?

From Sunday's televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. General Bill Ginn USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code Title 36, Ch. 10, Sec. 171....During rendition of the National Anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, "Stand and Face It."

Senator Obama Live on Sunday states: "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American Flag is a symbol of OPPRESSION."

"And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing. If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."

"My wife disrespects the flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago."

Wow, is all I have to say, for once I might be speechless, but not quite. Yes, Lord Obama I understand how wearing that flag pin could lead people to believe your "TAKING SIDES." God forbid, I for one would never want other countries to think that our PRESIDENT is taking OUR side. To WHOM is the flag considered a "symbol of oppression." Oh, that's right, the same people that live in caves and have your picture on their walls.

This is just the beginning ladies and gentlemen, if you think this is bad wait until he's elected. He will change the Pledge of Allegiance, change the Flag, change the National Anthem. Change it all to re-build it in his own "glorious" image. Maybe something like THIS or THIS would be more appropriate for a National Anthem. Laugh now perhaps, but see who's crying in a few months.



I'm Drew D. and that's the HORRIBLE, SCARY, AND INFURIATING truth.

The Third Party

What a Libertarian Is - and Is Not
by Sam Wells

A libertarian is a person - any person - who consistently advocates individual freedom and consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone upon the person or property of anyone else for any reason. (Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) Some libertarians (such as the late Robert LeFevre) not only oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, but also the use of retaliatory coercion (revenge or criminal justice). The vast majority of libertarians, however, maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one's family or property is fully justifiable.

But, all libertarians, by definition, at least oppose the initiatory use of coercion. They support the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the rights of others by initiating coercion, violence, or fraud against them forfeits his right to be left alone by government and may be arrested, charged, tried, and imprisoned, deported or executed if convicted (depending on the nature of his or her crimes). The basic, proper function of lawful government is therefore limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself, for if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it necessarily contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself.

Real libertarians take individual rights seriously - seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. This means that government must be bound by the policy of "laissez faire" - which means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful (non-coercive) citizens in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relationships.

Libertarians may or may not approve of some of the things that some people may do in private or in voluntary relations, but whatever their own code of personal moral conduct is, they do not seek to ban any private or voluntary activities by the use of force, including the force of government action. To do so would be to violate the very principle of individual rights of person and property, and thereby undercut any rational argument in favor of freedom or defense of the free-market system. Those exception makers and outright coercive busy-bodies in our midst (referred to as "interventionists" or "statists" by libertarians) who do want to abandon government by principle and instead put Whim in charge of the use of legal coercion are the people who help set the stage for arbitrary and capricious governmental tyranny - leading in the direction of totalitarian dictatorship.

Libertarians Are Not Conservatives

Libertarians are not "conservatives"; libertarians are radicals (principled advocates) for individual freedom and responsibility - and the pure free-market private-enterprise economic system which would result from a consistent application of that principle. A "conservative" on the other hand is one who wishes to preserve the status quo. The status quo in America today is the semi-socialist, semi-fascist mixed-economy welfare-state - a system inimical to personal freedom and responsibility. Libertarians do not support such a system, and oppose any and all measures to expand it while favoring the total repeal of interventionist laws and regulatory agencies.

Conservatives of the William F. Buckley or William Bennett variety are generally more concerned with imposing "order" than with allowing freedom. Although they often (and rightly) complain that government has got "too big" and too meddlesome in our lives, on some specific issues they themselves favor using the political power of government to legislate and enforce their view of morality upon the populace in "the national interest" or for the "social good." William Bennett, for example, opposes the legalization and/or decriminalization of the sale and use of heroin and cocaine, and he continues to support the no-win "War on Drugs" which is causing violence to escalate in our society. Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that "enforced morality" (in such personal matters) is a contradiction in terms; without freedom of choice there can be no moral responsibility and personal growth.

Libertarians also perceive that freedom brings about a more complex, dynamic and harmonious order in society (co-ordinated by the market price mechanism) than any static view of order imposed by central political planning and regulations of our non-coercive behaviors.
Libertarians are for individual freedom - and this includes the freedom of people to do some things that we and other people may disapprove of. A person should be free (from coercive interference) to do what he pleases with his own life and property, as long as he does not violate (through coercive interference) the same right of other peaceful persons to do what they want with their lives and properties. (The second clause is logically implied in the first.) Libertarians do not oppose non-coercive persuasion, educational efforts, private advertising campaigns, organized boycotts, or even social ostracism as means of trying to effect changes in the private behavior of others. (Many people have stopped smoking tobacco in recent years partly as a result of education and persuasion by friends and family members.) What libertarians do oppose is the attempt by anyone (individuals or government officials) to impose their own views of "fairness" or personal morality on others through the initiation of the use of coercion, by either personal violence or political legislation and governmental action. This principled position sets libertarians apart from conservatives as well as other non-libertarians.

Libertarians Are Not Welfare-State "Liberals"

Libertarians are not to be confused with the so-called "civil libertarians" which typify the membership and leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is true that the ACLU has come to the defense of freedom of speech for certain minorities (e.g., nazis, communists, and anarchists) and this is commendable - but the podium has often been at taxpayers' expense, which is a "no-no" from the real libertarian perspective. Many "civil libertarians" believe that some people have a "right" to violate the rights of others; they claim there is a "right to a job" or a "right" to welfare payments or a "right" to "free education" or a "right" to free child care - all at the expense of the people (usually the taxpayers) who are forced to pay for these so-called "rights." Real libertarians are for true freedom, not "freedom" at the forced expense of others. The only obligation that true rights impose on persons is of a negative kind: not to interfere with the rights of other people - i.e., to refrain from the initiation of the use of coercion. This is the core principle of libertarianism and is sometimes called the 'Non-Aggression Axiom'.

Welfare-state "liberals" and "civil libertarians" speak of "rights" of people as members of specially privileged groups, such as "women's rights" or "gay rights" or "rights of the handicapped" or even so-called "animal rights"! Real libertarians know that there are only individual rights, not group rights. There is no such thing as "gay rights" or "black rights" or "white rights" or left-handed Martian rights. Government must not be used to dish out special privileges to any group for any reason, since government cannot give anyone anything unless it takes it away from others by force, thereby violating their rights. There can be no such thing as a "right" to violate the rights of others.
No doubt there are some well-intentioned ACLU members who do promote true civil liberties and uphold human rights; however, the ACLU has not come to the defense of the rights of school children whose freedom is being violated daily by compulsory attendance laws and the tyranny of Federally-ordered forced busing. Nor do I know of any case in which the ACLU has defended the constitutional rights of businessmen who are being harassed by OSHA agents and other bureaucrats, or hounded by such arbitrary and subjective laws as the antitrust acts. Indeed, many "civil libertarians" seem callously insensitive to the victims of crime and legal plunder - while they defend known criminals from justice.

Because of their consistent adherence to the principle of individual rights, libertarians are the only true defenders of liberty -- civil or otherwise. Real libertarians understand that freedom of speech and other civil liberties depend on the sanctity of private property - not its violation by anti-discrimination laws and other forms of government intervention.

Libertarians Are Not for Unlimited Majority Rule

Libertarians are not democrats. While majority rule may or may not be as good as any other mechanism for selecting the men and women who administer the offices of government, libertarians deny that anyone or any group has a right to rule over other peaceful (non-coercive) citizens - whether they are in the majority or minority at any given time. If stealing is wrong for an individual to do, it is still wrong when conducted by a large group or by a majority vote. The number of people involved in an act does not change the rightness or wrongness of the act. There is no magic number that turns an individual wrong into a collective right. In a libertarian republic, the basic policy of government (i.e., laissez faire) is set by reference to fundamental principle -- the principle of individual rights -- and not determined by a show of hands. Libertarians uphold the right of the peaceful individual to self-ownership and private property against any who would violate this right - even a majority.
Libertarians Are Not Anarchists

Libertarians are not anarchists.

While it is true that some individuals favor a political system of competing vigilante committees, and refer to this position as "anarcho-capitalism" (a view formerly held by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard), this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal). Actually, libertarianism rests on the concepts of individualism, self-ownership, private property, & voluntary (market) exchange. Classical anarchism not only opposed the political state, but also some voluntary organizations of which it disapproved. Most importantly, true anarchists opposed private property - without which no voluntary relationships are possible. Today's libertarians are in the classical liberal tradition of Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and Frederic Bastiat - not the anarchist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin.

Libertarians Are Not Pragmatists

Libertarians do not advocate freedom or the free-market economy merely because "it works" (which it does better than any other system); they support it as the only non-coercive and just system - the system in which people are free to deal with one another on a voluntary basis as traders (exchangers of goods and services) instead of as masters and slaves - or as privileged class and exploited host. Others advocate government by whim. Libertarians adhere to certain principles, and without the guidance of principles and standards, all that is left is pragmatic expediency and the tyranny of government by whim. One might say that libertarians are "idealists" in the popular sense of that word; after all, libertarians stand for certain ideals - goals to strive for (e.g., less government intervention, more individual freedom and moral responsibility, free markets, etc.). Because libertarianism is based on man's nature and the nature of reality, it is the most practicable social system.

Libertarians are practical idealists.

Now you tell me, do you think that this party should have a legitimate role in American politics? I believe that as the two major parties become more and more synonymous Americans will look toward alternatives. I don't consider the "Green" Party a viable alternative, for the record. That is just a party that doesn't think the left is left enough. You might say in response to this that Libertarians are right of right. While this is true to a limited extent, they do not share many conservative policies. The Libertarian Party is quite unique and deserves serious consideration. After America falls into a quasi-Cuba with Emperor Obama at the helm, eyes will open, I hope.

I'm Drew D. and that's the truth.

The RED white and blue

Could it be that more than half of Americans actually support the impending socialization of our nation? Could they really be ASKING for this great nation to go the way of the Soviet Union? Considering what I have seen and heard throughout this election period I would lean toward the affirmative. However my heart still tells me that once the wool is pulled from their feeble eyes they won't be so receptive.

Never before have I seen the Communist agenda be so widely accepted and promoted in America. We all knew that this philosophy is the love child of the liberals but it has recently run rampant. Not only is their Presidential candidate (soon to be Emperor) the supreme leader of the Red party, but it is considered a political PLUS to be so. As much as Hussein lies and manipulates the American people about his true intentions he is still quite forthcoming. That is the truly scary thing about all of this. The fact that he is BRAGGING about changing the fabric of this nation in order to liken it to Cuba is shocking. What is even more shocking is the fact that people seem to love this idea. Am I lost? Where in the hell am I? Seriously, I really thought I lived in America, but lately it feels like I am living in the middle of 19th century USSR.

Barry and Biden have promoted the Communist agenda from day one and their numbers just get better and better. EVERYTHING they stand for and wish to implement reeks of collectivism. From stating that taxes are "patriotic," to saying "we need to spread your wealth around." Crazy, you might be saying to yourself. I'm just a crazy right wing radical nut right? No way is Barry Hussein in any way connected to the Communist Party right? Well let's see, take a gander at some of what these people had to say.

“Of course, as we all know, Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and he had a very good understanding of the underlying source of problems which all too often goes unstated and unchallenged and remains hidden because of the high fear-factor level in this country; I am referring to capitalism―a thoroughly rotten system. Frank Marshall Davis also understood through his thorough studies of the situation that socialism provided the only workable alternative to capitalism.”

Just add Davis to the long list of all-star mentors of Barry Hussein. It doesn't end their, hear is another sparkling Osama recommendation.

"Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.
The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.
One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
That’s right. The Communist Party Of The United States wants to elect Barack Hussein Obama as our President"

Makes you want to go pull that blue (RED) lever doesn't it? How inspiring, I can hardly contain myself. Is Barry a Communist? Well is the sky blue, is water wet, is beer delicious? Of coarse. Individual psychos like the previous gem I quoted are not the only Red supporters of Barry. Everyone from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chavez are on the Barry bandwagon. Not to mention every radical Islamic faction across the world having his picture on their cave walls. With all this support why shouldn't we vote for him?

Hussein is finally calling his "tax plan" for what it is, Communism. Just HERE, he decided to explain to this man that "spreading the wealth around is good for everyone." Hmm, so it's "NOT" punishing your success if the government takes away 75% of your money for doing so? Geez, I wonder what he DOES think punishment is. Oh wait, I know, punishment is making those who do nothing, produce nothing, and contribute nothing, HAVE NOTHING. Sorry sir, your much to "rich," you have plenty, it's time to be "patriotic." Which means I'm robbing you, but you should feel good about it. I will put it where it "belongs." Great plan Mr. Messiah, you should advise Castro when your not busy taking over America.

How full of shit is Barry Hussein really. This guy would lie about what he had for breakfast. Saying that he is "worried about factory jobs going over seas." COME ON! Gee, I wonder WHY jobs are going over seas and will continue at record breaking rates once his slimy ass gets in. It's because, Mr. Emperor, when you TAX THE HELL out of those "evil corporations" you speak of and FORCE them to conform to every regulation under the sun, they LEAVE. They either leave, or they lay off thousands, both of which are super things to happen in an ailing economy.

However, through all this gloom and doom there is a shimmer of hope. Hope that lies in a man named "Joe the Plumber." Here is a regular guy, a man that is trying to pursue the American dream. A man that has worked 12 hrs. a day, seven days a week for years in the hopes of buying the business he works for. To provide a better life for his family, to aspire to achieve things his parents could only dream of. But does Barry think he should have his dream? Sure, after he pays his dues to everyone down the street. Like the people that don't work, don't pay taxes, and don't produce anything, sounds reasonable. I love Joe, he should run for office, finally a man who speaks for me. He is PROUD of this country and tired of the leftist "apologize for America" BS. He is tired of Socialist programs like Social Security and Barry's proposed Sick Care. He recognizes that this re-distribution of wealth plan is a slippery slope. EXACTLY JOE! Just wait until Barry decides that 100k/year is "rich enough." Or even 40k, or how about just above the poverty line? That would be "good for everyone" don't you think? And it's not like Hussein wants taxes to go towards National Security, or Public Works (REAL public works, like roads not ACORN.) He wants taxes to go from the pockets of those who earned it to those who didn't. Take it from those who create jobs, create prosperity, contribute to society and the economy, and put into those who don't even PAY taxes. The goal is to make everyone the same, the Communist goal. Everyone makes the same, and everyone lives the same, inspiring philosophy isn't it?

We can only hope that the true Americans in this country stand up and fight this impending Communist Revolution before it's too late.

I'm Drew D. and that's the truth.

The Employee Coercion Act

The cleverly named "Employee Free Choice Act" will be one of the great "changes" to the workforce that the Messiah will implement once he has taken his thrown. This beautiful little bill not only strips an employees rights, but it makes them a target. The primary goal of this act is to convert the secret-ballot method of voting for and organizing unions to a public "card check" method. This method would mean doing away with the anonymity of union voting and replacing it with signed cards that are publicly viewed. Please read the act carefully as it is well outlined in the Heritage Foundation article.This part is key:

To protect American workers, Congress should:

Protect workers' privacy during organizing drives and guarantee every worker the right to vote in a private-ballot election;

Ensure that workers hear from both sides dur­ing an organizing drive and have time to reflect on their choice so they can make an informed and considered decision; and

Protect the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively without having government officials unilaterally impose employment con­tracts on them.

The Employee Free Choice Act would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.


This is absolutely correct and should be highlighted. Ask yourself; Why would unions be so adamant about making the votes of employees public? For a variety of reasons, one, it allows them to target those who have voted against it, and two, hinders employees from voting their true opinion. It is a fact that without privacy and outside influence a person will often vote ingenuously. And why not, with severe intimidation and threats resulting from a "no" vote on unions you might do the same. Union thuggery is no secret to anyone with half a brain (liberals excluded of coarse). With these public ballots they can target a dissenter within the employee ranks and proceed with the coercion, or, "persuasion." They will harass, intimidate, even go to the persons home in order to help them "see the light."

This is just one of the initial steps in implementing the Emperors second coming of the Workers Revolution. There will be more sure to come, so stay tuned for more exciting developments in the Messiah's war on capitalism!



I'm Drew D. and that's the truth.

Obama Loves Kids

We all know that the Messiah is truly a man of the people. A champion of the working man, a true humanitarian. Well as long as you don't consider a new born infant a "human" I guess that's true. For those of you who don't know infanticide is the practice of killing a child that was "supposed" to have been previously aborted. In other words if the abortion is botched and god forbid the baby is born anyway, the hospital "finishes the job," so to speak. Hear the horrifying details and eye witness testimony from a nurse that worked at one of these hospitals.

This is just more confirmation that these people are absolutely sick and need to be stopped at all costs. There is zero difference between Emperor Obama and Kim Jong Il in terms of "birth control" policies. Both are clear cut murderers and mad men. The most disturbing part about the whole thing was the crowd that cheered and applauded as Obama spoke to the masses at Unplanned Parenthood. What more evidence do we need to prove just how twisted and deranged the left is? How people can stand by and APPLAUD the murdering of new borns is totally beyond me. It should have come as no surprise to me, considering this is a man that believes a child is a "punishment" in the first place. I just thought that anyone with a slice of soul in their body that hasn't been dissolved by liberalism might just have a SLIGHT problem with infanticide. I guess I over estimated them, again, not surprised.

Sadly ironic considering Obama and his ilk will be the first to call our fine troops "baby killers."

I'm Drew D. and that's the truth.