Do you know who the real Barack Obama is??? Think again...

Who is supporting Obama? Hamas, for one.

PA daily reports that Gaza residents are randomly calling American homes trying to convince Americans to support Barack Obama for president. Can anyone seriously believe that young Palestinian men are allowed free and easy access to operate an internet phone bank in the impoverished and violent Gaza Strip — and bring that effort to the attention of the international media — without Hamas’ knowledge and approval? The support that Barack Obama is receiving from avowed terrorist enemies of America should bother him. The fact that it does not bother him should bother us even more than the fact that terrorists see something in him that they really like.

Most of the Palestinians feel hatred towards USA, whose administrations have always stood by Israel...

Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign. Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.

Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia, is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you’d expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a “racist” and “apartheid” state, and professes to believe in a “one-state” solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that “one” state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls.

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to “avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.”

Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a “lifetime achievement” award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years.

What does Barack Obama feel about the Constitution? He thinks it is fundamentally flawed.

Thomas Jefferson must have been mistaken when he said, "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

Check out these quotes from Obama in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to get formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples -- so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.And to that extent, as radical as I think people try 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, 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.

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 mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it [redistribution of wealth] legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. ..…”

Can a good Catholic support Obama? No.

Last week the Roman Catholic archbishop of Kansas City, Kan., declared abortion should be the most important issue for Catholics to consider when deciding on who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, said other problems facing the United States today, including the war in Iraq, should be considered less important than the right to life.“The church in the United States always cherished its rights and its responsibility to form the moral (conscience) of the country,” he said during his visit at University of Kansas’ Dole Institute of Politics.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is an abortion supporter. Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, a Catholic, also supports abortion. In contrast, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin oppose abortion.

What will Obama do to win the election? Cheat.

In Ohio as many as 200,000 new voter registrations in that state are suspect, yet Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is refusing to follow the 2002 Help America Vote Act that requires her to verify these registrations. The Ohio Republican Party sued Mrs. Brunner, but the Supreme Court said the GOP lacked standing. Justice does have standing — it is charged with upholding that law — but has ignored the fight. The Justice excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.

Yet that hasn't stopped the Civil Rights Division this month from filing a lawsuit against Waller County, Texas, to correct alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act; a lawsuit against Vermont for failing to report accurately on overseas ballots; and an amicus brief in a case filed by a civil-rights group that is suing to stop the Georgia Secretary of State from complying with voter verification rules. Justice's election suits always seem to side with liberal priorities.

It doesn't help Justice's credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters. According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 — nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.

And what happens to those who dare question this man? Retaliation.

Angry over a hard-nosed interview during which Barbara West of Orlando’s WFTV peppered Sen. Joe Biden with the kind of probing questions the pro-Obama mainstream media refuses to ask, the Obama campaign has completely banned the television station from future access and interviews. "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best, for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, from the Obama campaign.

During the interview, West asked Biden: "Aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?"Biden appeared flustered by the question, but quickly gained his composure and denied that Obama had been close to ACORN. Biden claimed that the campaign had not paid ACORN any money to register voters. West did not challenge Obama on this point, though during the Democratic primary in Ohio, the Obama campaign had, in fact, paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN-backed group. West did note that Obama has worked with this group in the past.

West again stung Biden, asking him about Obama's statement to Joe the plumber that he planned to "spread the wealth around." West queried: "A Gallup poll showed 84 percent of Americans prefer the government focus on improving economic conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S., as opposed to taking steps that distribute wealth. Isn't Senator Obama's comment a potentially crushing political blunder?"

Biden dodged the question, but West bored in, quoting Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," and asked Biden, "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden appeared stunned and asked, "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

West then asked Biden about his now-famous statement that Obama would be tested and would not be able to stand up to the challenge without help. "Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America's days as the world's leading power are over?" West asked. An obviously annoyed Biden responded by asking West who was writing her questions. West is a veteran TV news journalist who had worked as Peter Jennings' producer at ABC News.
West returned to the “spreading the wealth” question, asking Biden what he'd "say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?" Biden again ducked the question,…

What happens to a normal American citizen who questions Obama tax plan? TV broadcasts showcasing every private detail of his life.

Government computers in Ohio may been used to illegally access personal information about Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, otherwise known as "Joe the Plumber," according to the Columbus Dispatch.

During their October 15 debate, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain referred to "Joe the Plumber" constantly. In the days following the debate, information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport utility vehicle was retrieved from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times, the Dispatch reported.

With access to such information limited to legitimate law enforcement and government business, state and local officials are now investigating whether the information was obtained illegally. The information was retrieved using accounts assigned to the Ohio attorney general's office, a county child support enforcement agency, and the Toledo Police Department, according to the report.
An Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign told the Dispatch that the information breach may have been politically motivated. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," Paul Lindsay told the Dispatch.

What about that promise that 95% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama?

Well, only if you don’t consider letting the Bush tax cuts expire a tax increase, don’t consider a recall on tax breaks for IRAs a tax increase, don’t consider that the “standard” for rich folks getting it socked it them keeps changing in Obama’s plan disturbing (rich last week was $250K, this morning it is $150K, who knows what it will be tomorrow?), and knowing that 40% of Americans currently don’t pay income taxes and therefore a tax cut would constitute welfare.

Oh, and your pension that you are counting on to keep you fed and warm in your old age? Joe Biden promised last week, referring to CEOs, “Their pensions go first," he told the cheering crowd. Meaning what? We're going to take 'em.
He's going to take away people's pensions. If you let that happen, he can take away yours.

Stop and think about what our America, the land we love, could become under a socialist president with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid eager to do his bidding.

Sources include National Review Online, What Does the Prayer Really Say?, Rush Limbaugh, AP, and Columbus Dispatch.