OBAMA & SOROS: AMERICAN NIGHTMARES

WELCOME TO MY MANY VISITORS FROM BRAZIL. IF YOU KEEP COMING, I PROMISE TO LEARN SOME PORTUGESE. WHEN IT COMES TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN FROM BRAZILIANS.

NEW COLUMN UP AT 7 A.M. EASTERN TIME.

Michelle Obama says that her husband has always had "a healthy ego."
Katie Couric asked her: "How do you keep it in check?"
My Answer: "Have him read this blog."

Over the next week, I'll be writing about Barack Obama, who he is, what he's done, and why his election as President would be bad for America. Recently, I noted that Obama -- in terms of finances -- is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, billionaire founder of Moveon.org and a full-time "Amerika-hater." I noted that Soros is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization centered in Gaza.

One of my critics replied that I was part of "the Republican attack machine" in regard to Obama -- and that Soros merely wanted to "negotiate" with Hamas.

My response to him is as follows: "Negotiate" with Hamas about what? The morality of suicide bombings? The wisdom of firing Kastusha rockets into Israeli settlements? The seriousness of Hamas about its stated commitment to the destruction -- the annihilation -- of Israel? Or about the mass murder of members of the rival Fatah political group?

Go over to Moveon.org, the nation's largest hate-machine, and you will find out all you need about George Soros and his minions. They despise their country, the one that enabled someone like Soros to amass a fortune of roughtly $10 billion.

In my criticisms of Obama, I've noted that he was not only militantly pro-abortion, but also that he favored a form of infanticide. As Michael Barone, favorable in many ways to Obama's political skills, said in the curent edition of The Almanac of American Politics (p. 539): "He [Obama] voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who survived abortions." Unfortunately, I'm not making this up, and, yes, I do attack Obama for refusing to support any limitations on abortion.

Obama will talk a lot in his campaign about the importance of "our children." He won't indicate that he favors the destruction of our most vulnerable children, those gasping for air. I guess his commitment to "universal health care" doesn't apply to children who are victims of botched abortions. How does this man sleep at night? Would he have advocated such a fate for his own beautiful children?

In all his empty talk about bringing the country together and "reaching across the aisle" to Republicans, Obama neglects to mention that his political stands allow for no real compromises. Yes, he will occasionally work with Republicans on non-controversial issues, but on anything of true significance, he will function as a militant leftist.

When I noted that the non-partisan National Journal had designated Obama as the most liberal Senator, my critic replied that was only true of 2007. In the previous year, he has been "only" the 9th most liberal Senator. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess the point is that Obama is a militant Leftist only when he's running for President.

Obama is the first presidential candidate ever endorsed by Soros' Moveon.org. The three million members of that group comprise most of the 20% of the Democrats in national survey who indicate they want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. Obama's prescription for what we should do in Iraq is to have us flee as soon as possible, leaving the country to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and other sectarian fanatics.

On the other hand, he apparently doesn't have a problem with having us invade Pakistan in search of al Qaeda leaders. In other words, his foreign policy is to desert one ally and alienate another. This is Soros-ism to a fault. It makes no sense, but it does produce standing ovations from the mindless Moveon types.

Honestly, I wish I were making this stuff up, but I'm not. I wish Obama were the attractive candidate he sometimes he tries to convince us he is. But he's not.

Yes, I'm going to continue attacking Barack Obama. I will never, never make up any charges against him. He has a terrible record, one of extreme partisanship and dishonesty about his motives. An individual who favors denying medical care to injured infants is beneath contempt.

That's not a gratuitous attack on Obama. Rather, it's just a call for him to practice some basic human decency.

The other day, before he attacked McCain, Obama said "John McCain is an American hero." What he should have said afterwards, but didn't, was "And I'm not." Like Soros, he's an American nightmare, and he must be defeated.

_________________________

OBAMA, CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES BACKING HUGE TAX INCREASE

Senator Obama's office today disseminated the following news release:

"Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act."

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

Here's the link to the entire release: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1/

The following is an assessment of the "Global Poverty Act" by Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media (AIM) who, unlike Senator Obama, talks about the small matter of costs:

"A nice-sounding bill called the 'Global Poverty Act,' sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. "

Here's the link to the entire Kincaid article: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm

Steve says: Frankly, I wish Senator Obama had asked his billionaire friend and financial backer George Soros (worth about $10 billion) and the folks at Moveon.org to use their own vast resources to eliminate poverty throughout the world. It doesn't seem fair to saddle U.S. taxpayers, in a time of economic downturn, with the obligation. It seems likely that most of the $845 billion will go down the usual rathole that is the repository of much economic aid.

Jacob's Question: Pro-Life or Pro-Rhetoric?

In a comment on my abortion pieces, Jacob Ditkoff raised the following question about abortion:

I think it's odd that you have so much money going to advocating Pro-Life positions, PACs, candidates, TV ads, but seemingly so little actually going to organizations that make it easier for women to choose to carry their child to term.There's an organization in New York that tries to prevent infanticide (http://amtchildrenofhope.com/).

They reach out to mothers with hotlines and options including accepting babies from mothers with no questions asked, completely anonymously. There could be similar outreach to make it just a little easier for a mother to choose adoption. Including paying for medical expenses, etc. Are there organizations like that? Because it seems like the face of the Pro-Life movement are holier-than-thou religious leaders who spend as much time calling those with a differing view evil as advancing their own priorities.

Mr. Ditkoff raises an "inconvenient question" about pro-life individuals and groups. The answer to his question is that such groups do exist in many states, but they're not highly visible, and they're not very well-funded.

He brings to our attention a group that deserves both support and emulation: http://amtchildrenofhope.com/

People like Dr. Larry White, a Lutheran minister in Houston, look at abortion and see massive, pervasive moral corruption in the U.S. They somehow don't see what's obvious: many frightened, poor women who don't see many alternatives to having abortions.

In some cases the women "in trouble and in need of a friend" confront public health and assistance programs that are hard to navigate. For many of them, there is little support from partners or parents.

I've suggested a large (multi-billion-dollar) infusion of taxpayers' money to help women and their children. Used wisely and humanely, that money could significantly reduce the number of abortions in America.

Mr. Ditkoff is correct that some in the Pro-Life movement have a "holier-than-thou" approach to pregnancy and abortion. We need to identify such people and expose them, as I've sought to do.

For anyone who is or may be pregnant and needs assistance, I highly recommend Birthright International. You can find out information about the organization by either going to: http://birthright.org/ or calling 800-550-4900.

Birthright is a non-denominational, non-judgmental, pro-life group, with an emphasis on life in all its human manifestations. The organization does not use intimidation or scare tactics -- unlike some supposed "pro-life" groups.

It will help with legal, medical, and housing referrals and can provide most things a pregnant woman might need, including clothing needs for mothers and infants.

As the organization explains: "BIRTHRIGHT DOES NOT ...use "scare tactics" or pressure. ...show abortion slides or pictures. ...picket or harass abortion clinics. ...evangelize. ...lobby for legislative changes . . . or engage in the public debate on abortion."

To reiterate, Birthright doesn't browbeat or terrorize pregnant women. It loves them, and it helps them.

Another group I highly recommend is the Salvation Army, which is easily accessible in large- and mid-sized cities, as well as in many smaller towns.

I'll mention several other good organizations over the next few weeks.

Note: Both Birthright and the Salvation Army rely on individual and institutional donors. In short, they can always use more money.

Stephen R. Maloney