If Obama Wins ...

You're being unreasonably optimistic. I'm becoming convinced that Barack Obama is a Horace Jules type figure, a figurehead for something operating behind the scenes.

I think that there is something very like the N.I.C.E. behind this man.

I've disliked opposition candidates before. But I've never been afraid before.

I fear that once this man enters the White House, that's it. There will be no chance to remove him in 2012, because the government as we have known it for over 200 years will be destroyed from within.

Bill Ayers and his fellows set the goal of the total overthrow of the US government more than 30 years ago. Their goals haven't changed. Just their tactics.

Maybe somebody could answer me? I really don't know what to do about this, it's troubling me all day, I think I can't trust Sarah any longer. First the "fashion"-affair, and now:
Sarah and Todd are known to have gone to the Assemblies of God Church in Wasilla and later to the Wasilla Bible Church. Both these churches, like all evangelicals in the US and around the world, believe in tithing, which is giving at least one tenths of one’s personal income. While the Wasilla Bible Church’s web site didn’t specifically address this issue, the Assemblies of God’s web site had this to say as to the Church’s position on tithing:

“The Assemblies of God has always been a proponent of tithing (or giving one-tenth of one’s personal income to support the work of God).”
A look at the Palin’s tax returns shows a lack of adherence to this important principle. According to the McCain web site Todd and Sarah made in 2006 $127,869 and donated $4,250 to charity in cash/check donations (which presumably was their tithes) and $630 in non-cash/check donations (which one presumes is the cash in the offering divided by weeks comes out to a mere $12 per week), for a total of $4,880. This is 3.3% of their adjusted gross income. Less than a third of the 10% that Evangelical churches believe that it is mandated of the faithful to contribute. The following year, 2007, the Palin’s contributions were significantly lower. In 2007, Sarah and Todd Palin donated $2,500 to charity in cash/check donations and $825 in non-cash/check donations( this year their cash in the till was higher up to $15.86 per week) , for a total of $3,325. This is 1.5% of their adjusted gross income even half of what was given in 2006. Assuming that this was all that was given to the Church and assuming that all the declared charity contributions were exclusively for the church, this represents a very very small percentage of the 10% expected of the evangelical faithful.

I'm sure you're aware that the # of abortions in the U.S. actually declined during President Clinton's administration, and rose dramatically during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.

This is because, historically, republicans, while claiming a "pro-life" position, tend to slash preventive/educational/counseling/adoption services for women, and democrats, on the other hand, support them. And so, there are actually fewer abortions during a democratic administration.

Take a look at Kerry Kennedy's new book: "Being Catholic Now." She is the 7th child of RFK, a human rights lawyer, a devout catholic, and a democrat. She makes the point above: that if abortion is your issue, then you have a duty to elect a democrat to the White House on November 4.

And surely you understand that the republican ticket abuses the abortion issue in order to manipulate you into voting for them, right?

You say you're afraid of Barack Obama. But does it not bother you that John McCain was directly involved with one of the biggest savings and loan scams perpetrated on the American people in history? It was the Keating Five. McCain made it possible for his friend Charles Keating to cheat American taxpayers out of billions of dollars from his failed savings and loan, all while Keating contributed heavily to McCain's campaign and took him and his family on free trips to the Caribbean. That's illegal, my friend. McCain apologized, but only after he was caught.

Also, Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, was a card-carrying member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), whose goal is to secede from the United States of America. Secession is considered a form of domestic terrorism. Sarah sent the AIP greetings on several occasions. Do these facts not frighten you?

Not to mention that Sarah Palin is already being investigated for abusing her power as governor of Alaska and violating state ethics (Troopergate), and she hasn't even been in office for two years. Not a good sign, in my opinion.

One other thing: I in no way condone Bill Ayers' violent activities with the Weather Underground (when Barack Obama was 8 years old), but you should understand the facts. By his own admission, Ayers wasn't trying to overthrow the U.S. government; he was protesting our country's role in the Vietnam War. I agree that his tactics were wrong. But the fact is that Ayers was never convicted of a crime, and is now a productive, functional member of the Chicago community, as well as a highly respected university professor and education reformer. For what those facts are worth.

I'd also like to add that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that states that a catholic must vote for the "pro-life" candidate. It states that a catholic must vote for the candidate who will do the most good for the most people.

In closing, I was raised catholic and went to catholic schools and a Jesuit University. I am a woman. I am pro-life. And I am pro-choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one likes abortion. Not Barack Obama, not me. No one is "pro-abortion." But I do not believe that the U.S. government (primarily old, white men) has the right to decide what a woman does with her body in her private life. That decision is up to her, her doctors, her family, and her spiritual advisors.

And since republicans always rail against too much big government, it's completely contradictory that they would want the government to invade the privacy of female citizens in this way.

Now turn off Fox News.

1,3,5,6, maybe... I also point out that it's bad practice to try to stuff the supreme court with people who will overturn a specific decision. It's supposed to be an oversight, not a tool. If you object to Rowe, the appropriate way to overturn it is with a constitutional amendment - not manipulating the legal system.
2,4,7, not a chance. A president can't just pass legislation (Well, there are dirty tricks, but Obama doesn't seem the type to use those) - he still needs the 50% congressional majority. And he isn't going to get it on any of these.
8 I am not sure who needs to give the approval.