Traditionally, the presidential election is a time to select a candidate, to vote for someone. The 2008 election will prove to be a different sort of election, however: one wherein a conservative’s focus might not necessarily be who to vote for, but who to vote against. Barack Obama is a dangerous political opponent for John McCain. This isn’t necessarily because he poses a strong threat as a candidate, but because his following’s loyalty borders on fanatic obsession. John McCain might not be your ideal Republican candidate, but he deserves your vote precisely for who he isn’t: Barack Obama. What follows are the five reasons I’m voting for John McCain and against Barack Obama.

If Barack Obama is defined by the company he keeps, he’s a racist, anti-American extremist. From Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers to Bernadine Dohrn, just enough of Obama’s skeletons have come out of the closet and endorsed him to cast a cloud of danger over his electability as the president of the United States. Indeed, much of Obama’s primary campaign has been fraught with various allies from Obama’s past and present dancing into the media spotlight. Then, after a fair amount of unsavory press, Obama apologizes for and separates himself from the same friends he aligned himself with mere months earlier. We need only consider Obama’s remarks about Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his mentor, then the exposure of Trinity United Church and Obama’s subsequent denouncement of Wright’s anti-American speech to recall the pattern. Known terrorists, both domestic and international, endorse Barack as their man. Young Palestinian men lobby on his behalf in earnest. They do this because Obama in office serves their own interests.

Obama’s patriotism is questionable. In an election, we naturally compare one candidate to another. One candidate doesn’t wear a flag pin. One candidate doesn’t hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One candidate has no military experience. One candidate’s idea of foreign policy is to negotiate with enemies who wish to obliterate our existence over a cup of coffee. The role of the president should be filled by someone who loves our country, who values our history, and who has proven that he is ready to die to serve our country. The role of the First Lady should similarly be filled by someone who honors and respects the country her husband serves. It doesn’t count when your patriotism begins just as your husband enters the presidential campaign. If Obama’s friends don’t derail his campaign, his own wife and life partner surely will.

Obama is a skilled orator, a trait that has earned him a devout following in a party largely comprised of atheists. When Barack Obama opens his mouth to speak, liberals’ ears seem to filter out the message and listen only to the words in a hypnotic trance. Their devotion to Obama mimics that of radical Christians to Jesus Christ. Criticize Obama to a liberal Obama supporter, and it’s as if you’ve questioned the existence of God, only the resulting argument is much angrier and holds far less intellectual merit. It’s more like telling an environmentalist that chaining himself to a tree won’t save the earth, or informing a war protester that no one in Washington cares what he or she thinks.

It isn’t Obama’s following that is of the most concern, however. A public speaker as smooth as Obama will inspire fans on his own talents. Let’s remember, however, that Barack Obama was a lawyer before he became a senator. And, like most lawyers, his words are best when rehearsed. However, Obama crumbles under pressure, and his improvised remarks typically fall flat or offend. We need only recall the fallout from the “bitter small-town Americans”, “typical white person” and “Can’t I just eat my waffle?” to recall Obama’s propensity to fumble the ball when he’s running an unscripted play with nary a playbook in sight. It’s one thing to offend foreign, enemy nations during wartime; offending majority populations of the country you represent is another, especially as you align for their vote in November. Judging from the multitude of politically incorrect missteps in his primary campaign, Obama seems to think that he doesn’t need votes from entire segments of the population; namely, the middle of the country. This blatantly blase attitude must cost him the election to teach Democrats that conservative minds will not be discounted.

Obama’s politics and ideals are too far skewed on the liberal end of the political scale to strike a balance with Americans as a whole. No matter the political affiliation of a sitting president, his job is to appease the majority of his constituents, the American public. Radical liberals clamor for our next president to be a polar opposite to George W. Bush; conservatives know that accomplishing this won’t automatically fix the ills that plague our country. The checks and balances within our legislature make any change a gradual one, over many years. Amid a tenuous situation in the Middle East, too liberal of a response by our next president casts the United States as lily-livered pansies, too afraid of hurting feelings to eradicate terrorism. Extreme left-wing Democrats either don’t realize this or don’t care, and Obama is their man. If he gets into office, small-town typical white Americans had better cling to their guns and religion, because Obama will muck up civilian rights to both.

Obama’s experience is lacking. This isn’t to say that a junior senator can’t be president one day. The presidency is fraught with unique challenges, however, ones that can’t be adequately prepared for in any branch of the government. In the business world, even the best candidates from upper management must pay their dues before aspiring to become CEO. The team captain must prove his or her leadership potential over several seasons to earn that ‘C’ on a uniform. In every other successful realm of the American culture, experience yields a top leadership position. Why should the presidency, the most historically esteemed and influential position in the country, be any different? Obama’s inexperience lands him into trouble with his improvised remarks and shaky responses to tough issue-based questions. His inexperience causes him to make crucial errors and oratory missteps under pressure. He is simply not ready. Democrats can clean up his image and repackage him in 2012.

In every endeavor, Barack Obama has flouted the intellect of the constituents whose vote he aims to obtain. He’s dazzled his starry-eyed followers with well-crafted speeches that render them vociferously loyal; in cult-like fashion, they zealously support Obama to all who will listen. Separate Obama from his gilded memorized passages, and his words clang jarringly and offend like a cat walking across piano keys at twilight. Pin him in a corner with tough questions on issues and his allies, and he strikes like a caged animal trapped in a corner. Obama’s speeches act like a mirror through which radical liberals see exactly what they want to see in their next president. It is up to the rest of us to peer through the looking-glass and see Obama for the inexperienced, unsavory presidential candidate he is.

 

10 Reasons NOT to vote for Obama

1. He supports infanticide, literally!

2. His spiritual mentor for 20 years has been Jeremiah Wright whom Obama personally chose out of many Chicago pastors. It strains credibility that he didn’t know about Wright’s views. He listened to tapes of Rev. Wright when he was at Harvard Law! So why did he choose him and stick with him for so long? The only possible explanation is that he approved of Wright’s tirades.

3. He is a close friend of William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists.

4. He is a target for assassination, not because he is black but because he is a Muslim apostate, according to devout Muslims around the world. Therefore, he cannot be a good Chief Diplomat to the Middle East.

5. He was mentored by a communist.

6. His economic plan will harm the US economy and create more fiscal irresponsibility with the Congressional Budget. Why do we want to return to the days of Jimmy Carter?

7. He is in favor of unilateral disarmament, leaving America defenseless against its enemies.

8. He is unaccomplished. He hasn’t really done anything of worth relative to the office of the US presidency. He’s only been in the Senate for about two years (assumed in office Jan of 2005 and announced his candidacy for the presidency in Feb 2007). One can’t be simultaneously a full-time senator and a full-time presidential candidate. Soon he will have campaigned for almost as long as he has been in the Senate.

9. He is willing to personally meet with hostile dictators like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. They don’t deserve such a privilege of meeting the President of the USA. Reagan negotiated from a position of strength, when he thought he could gain something. What does Obama hope to gain?

10. Three other people: Tony Rezko, Eric Holder, Jim Johnson. Why does Obama associate with such shady characters?

 

Lots of reasons I won't vote for Obama

Posted: March 21, 2007
By Burt Prelutsky
© 2008

I have a friend who could very well be a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Although I consider her a liberal, I'm sure she regards herself as a moderate. To prove it, she makes a point of condemning politicians of both parties as partisan hacks. Actually, with precious few exceptions, I agree with her. However, she likes to say she wishes that those on the left and those on the right could put their differences aside and come together for the sake of the country. It sounds so nice and reasonable, just like the bilge coming out of one of Sen. Obama's love fests. The problem, of course, is that when it comes to the issues, there's no way to work out a compromise.

Obama is currently in the business of trying to be all things to all people. He figures that so long as he avoids commenting on actual issues, Hillary Clinton will eventually remind the country why so many of us couldn't stand her when she was merely the most obnoxious first lady we'd ever had. But the fact remains that he's a liberal from a very liberal state and, if elected, would bring a left-wing mindset to the White House.

 

As I told my friend, I don't think all liberals are bad people, but I can't say as much about their stand on the issues.

For instance, the liberal position is to nullify the Second Amendment, making it impossible for honest citizens to own guns.

Liberals have made a religion out of the junk science revolving around global warming and made a god out of Al Gore, a man who just happens to own an alternative energy company.

Liberals believe in encouraging America's enemies by announcing timetables for withdrawal from war zones. They also believe in extending Geneva Conventions protections to terrorists and constitutional rights to illegal aliens.

Liberals argue in favor of bilingual education in spite of the fact studies show that Latinos, so educated, rarely catch up to other foreign-born students who aren't similarly patronized.

Liberals promote open borders, higher taxes and an end to capital punishment.

Liberals favor affirmative action while simultaneously insisting that they, unlike conservatives, are racially colorblind. But, then, they are also the folks who see nothing wrong with U.S. members of Congress forming a Black Caucus.

Liberals believe that activist Supreme Court judges should be encouraged to ignore the original intentions of the nation's forefathers so long as the judges are advancing a left-wing agenda.

Liberals see nothing wrong with academic tyranny so long as it's their professors who are ruling the ivy-covered roost.

Liberals have stretched the First Amendment beyond all recognition. What it says in regards to the so-called separation of church and state is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It then goes on to proclaim freedom of the press and speech, and to acknowledge the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Only certifiably crazy people could interpret that to preclude schools from announcing Christmas vacation or a community from placing a 30-foot Christmas tree on the roof of its city hall.

Liberals believe that freedom of the press extends only to those newspapers, TV networks and radio stations in lockstep with their beliefs. But let Internet websites, talk radio or Fox News offer a viable alternative, and liberals start looking for ways to shut down the opposition. Apparently, it's only pornography they hate to see censored.

Liberals insist they're for religious tolerance, women's rights, democracy and intellectual freedom, but more often than not they side with the Arabs, who are for none of those things, and against Israel.

Liberals favor gay marriage, but refuse to say, if homosexuals are allowed to tie the knot, on what basis, if any, the state can deny the same right to consenting adults who just happen to be siblings, father and daughter, mother and son, or Pamela Sue Anderson and the Oakland Raiders.

Liberals want the U.N., not the U.S., to be the world's peacekeeper. But one only has to look at Darfur to see what a fine job the U.N. does of it. And how is it that the same liberals who can't bear the thought of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq are so anxious to have them sent off to Sudan?

Liberals are terribly concerned with respecting the rites and traditions of Muslims both here and in Guantanamo, but every holiday season happily attack the rites and traditions of American Christians.

Liberals have double standards where political scandals are concerned. Whereas Republicans lop the heads off their own (Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Dan Crane, Trent Lott, Scooter Libby), even sometimes when the charges hardly warrant it, liberals have no problem giving leadership positions to such scoundrels as Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, Robert Byrd, John Murtha, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank; or, for that matter, paying homage to the likes of Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

But perhaps there's no area in which their hypocrisy is on such blatant display as when it comes to abortions. Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court should never have heard Roe v. Wade in the first place – abortion not being a constitutional right – liberals are simply loopy when it comes to this issue. Whether it's fighting for a woman's right to have a partial-birth abortion or abortions on demand for young teens, you can count on liberals being just plain wrong. It's sort of funny in a way because the same yahoos who insist that 18 and 19 year old men and women are too immature to enlist in the military seem to think 13-year-olds are up to having abortions without parental consultation.

If Barack Obama has a way to convince me that he's for the same things I am, fine. Otherwise, for all his sweet talk about building bridges, he strikes me as just another snake oil salesman trying to charisma his way into the Oval Office with a smile and a shoeshine.

10 Concerns about Barack Obama
It's policy.

By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

1. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history. For at least the past five years, Democrats and liberals have said our standing in the international community has suffered from a “cowboy” or “go-it-alone” foreign policy. While politicians with favorable views of our president have been elected in Germany, Italy, France, and elsewhere, Barack Obama is giving cause to make our allies even more nervous. This past Sunday’s Washington Post reported, “European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.”

Barack Obama’s stance toward Iran is as troubling as it is dangerous. By stating and maintaining that he would negotiate with Iran, “without preconditions,” and within his first year of office, he will give credibility to, and reward for his intransigence, the head of state of the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism. Such a meeting will also undermine and send the exact wrong signal to Iranian dissidents. And, he will lower the prestige of the office of the president: In his own words he stated, “If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.” Not only has his stance toward Iran caused concern among our allies in Europe, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called it, “Irresponsible and frankly naïve.”

 

Barack Obama’s position on negotiating with U.S. enemies betrays a profound misreading of history. In justifying his position that he would meet with Iran without precondition and in his first year of office, Barack Obama has said, “That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; that’s what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev.”

In reverse order, Ronald Reagan met with no Soviet leader during the entirety of his first term in office, not (ever) with Brezhnev, not (ever) with Andropov, not (ever) with Chernenko. He met only with Gorbachev, and after he was assured Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader — and after Perestroika, not before.

If Barack Obama wants to affiliate with Richard Nixon, that’s certainly his call. But one question: Was Taiwan’s expulsion from the U.N. worth “Nixon to China”? That was the price of that meeting.

As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit of 1961, Kennedy himself said “He beat the hell out of me.” As two experts recently wrote in the New York Times: “Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was ‘just a disaster.’ Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed ‘very inexperienced, even immature.’ Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was ‘too intelligent and too weak.’ The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.”

So successful was the summit that the Berlin Wall was erected later that year and the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Soviets deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, commenced the following year.

2. Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists. Barack Obama brags on his website that “In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.” His website further states that “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” This, at the very time our greatest successes in Iraq have taken place. And yet, as Gen. David Petraeus has stated (along with other military experts from Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institution to members of the U.S. military), our progress in Iraq is “fragile and reversible.”

Obama’s post-invasion analysis of Iraq is anything but credible or consistent, leading one to even greater doubt about his strategy as commander-in-chief. When President Bush announced the surge strategy in January 2007, Barack Obama opposed it, saying it “would not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly,” and that “the President’s strategy will not work.” Of course, the surge is one of the greatest achievements in Iraq since the initial months of the invasion, and is has reversed much of the loss suffered since the invasion.

Beyond these miscalculations and poor judgment on Iraq strategy, Obama has been anything but consistent on Iraq. For example, the same year (2007) he stated it would be a good idea to bring home the U.S. troops from Iraq within March of 2008, three months later he stated, we should bring them home “immediately…. Not in six months or one year — now.”

3. Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel. Earlier this month, Barack Obama told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The next day, Obama backtracked, stating: “Obviously, it’s [Jerusalem] going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues…And Jerusalem will be part of the negotiations.” Later, Obama’s Middle East adviser tried to explain the flipping of positions on Jerusalem by stating Obama did not understand what he was saying to AIPAC: “[h]e used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East.”

Such quick switches of policy may stem from mere inexperience or they may stem from a general tone-deafness on the meaning of words and policy when it comes to the Middle East. After all, earlier this year, a leading Hamas official endorsed Barack Obama stating, “I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.” Rather than immediately renouncing such an endorsement, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, embraced the endorsement, saying “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.” Given Barack Obama’s long-standing ties to Palestinian activists in the U.S., one has good cause to wonder.

4. While his Mideast policy may have been the quickest turnaround or flip-flop on a major issue, it is not the only one. In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues. During the primary, Obama sent out a campaign flier that said “Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA,” and called it a “bad trade deal.” He also said NAFTA was “devastating,” “a big mistake,” and in what the Washington Post labeled as a unilateral threat to withdraw from NAFTA, Obama said “I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage.”

No longer. Recently, Barack Obama backtracked on NAFTA and said, “I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally.” “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.” He explained his primary campaign opposition this way: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

This is of a piece with his further change of position on public campaign financing. As a primary candidate, he touted his support for the public financing of presidential campaigns, but then witnessing his own fundraising prowess, as a general election candidate he has gone the unique route of forswearing the system. As David Brooks put it in the New York Times:

Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck.

5. Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling. On March 18, after several clips of sermons by his longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright surfaced (showing Wright condemning the United States with vitriolic comparisons and denunciations), Obama defended his friend stating: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” After Rev. Wright delivered two more talks along the same lines as the clips that led to the March 18 speech, Sen. Obama finally denounced Wright the following month, stating: “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.” “They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs,” he said.

 

It strained credulity to believe Obama was unaware of Wright’s previous rants — especially after a 20-year membership in Wright’s church, especially when in February of last year Obama asked Wright not to attend his campaign announcement because he “could get kind of rough in sermons,” and especially when his church’s magazine honored on its front cover such a man as Louis Farrakhan. Nonetheless, once he ceased being a political asset and turned into a political liability, Obama dumped him.

Jeremiah Wright is, of course, not the only person close to Barack Obama who holds vitriolic anti-American views. Bill Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground. According to his own memoir, Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. As recently as 2001, Ayers said “I don’t regret setting bombs….I feel we didn’t do enough.’’ When asked if he would engage in such terrorism again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.” When confronted with his friendship with Bill Ayers, Barack Obama dismissed the negative connections saying he is also friendly with abortion opponent U.S. Senator Tom Coburn. While Obama has never, himself, discussed his relationship with Ayers, what we do know is that Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his home and, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Obama and Ayers moved in some of the same political and social circles in the leafy liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where they lived several blocks apart. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Ayers introduced Obama during a political event at his home, according to Obama’s aides….

Obama and Ayers met a dozen times as members of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a local grant-making foundation, according to the group’s president. They appeared together to discuss juvenile justice on a 1997 panel sponsored by the University of Chicago, records show. They appeared again in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.

 

6. Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe. The most recent example is his support for the Supreme Court decision granting habeas-corpus rights to terrorists, including — theoretically — Osama bin Laden. When the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was delivered, Obama said, “I think the Supreme Court was right.” His campaign advisers held a conference call where they claimed the Supreme Court decision was “no big deal” according to ABC News, even if applied to Osama bin Laden, because a judge would find that the U.S. has “ample grounds to hold him.”

In a recent interview, Obama stated: “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”

Ask the legal officials during the 1990s just how cowed terrorists were by our continued indictments against them. Or, witness the bombings at the African embassies, the attack on the USS Cole, or the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Now, ask yourself why we have not been attacked since 9/11, and, even more specifically, why there have been no successful attacks against American civilian interests abroad since 2004.

7. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy. As Kimberly Strassel recently put it in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Obama is hawking a tax policy that would take the nation back to the effective marginal tax rates of the Carter days. He wants to further tax income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and death. His philosophy is pure redistribution.”

When Barack Obama speaks of taxing only the wealthy, keep in mind this could have a devastating effect on new small businesses. As Irwin Stelzer has written: “Taxes change behavior. By raising rates on upper income payers, Obama is reducing their incentive to work and take risks. The income tax increase is not all that he has in mind for them. He plans to increase their payroll taxes, the taxes they pay on dividends received and capital gains earned, and on any transfers they might have in mind to their kith and kin when they shuffle off this mortal coil. If the aggregate of these additional taxes substantially diminishes incentives to set up a small business of the sort that has created most of the new jobs in recent decades, the $1,000 tax rebate will be more than offset by the consequences of reduced growth and new business formation.”

8. Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices. While Barack Obama has opposed off-shore drilling and a gas-tax holiday (as supported by John McCain or Hillary Clinton), his solution to our energy crisis does include additional tax burdens on oil company profits, taxes we can only imagine will be passed on to the consumer, thus causing an even more expensive trip to the gas station. As the New York Times recently detailed, ethanol subsidies are a major plank in Barack Obama’s view of energy independence and national security; the “Obama Camp is Closely Linked with Ethanol,” and “Mr. Obama…favors [ethanol] subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax.”

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

10. Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate. According to the National Journal, “Sen. Barack Obama…was the most liberal senator in 2007.” As the magazine reported: “The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns ‘composite’ scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden (D., Del.), with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), with a 92.8.”

Whom will a man this far left appoint to the Supreme Court?

— William J. Bennett is the host of the nationally syndicated radio show Bill Bennett’s Morning in America. Seth Leibsohn is the show’s producer.