Weekly Standard has a fine article detailing lots of Barack Obama's Illinois legislative history that so many people have been unable to find. Weekly Standard Article by Stanley Kurtz
His associations with leftist radicals are greatly expanded upon and explained in this. Also, the fiscal results of his legislative history on the rattled state of Illinois. How goes Illinois, may be how the nation will go if there is an Obama administration.
"[W]e are going to grow our foreign service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy," said Obama. "We cannot to continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."[I] (link)
Are you ready to join up? Obama Youth....sounds about right.
"The 12 million people in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands, the neighborhoods seeing rising tensions as citizens are pitted against new immigrants…they’re counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation. They’re counting on us to rise above the fear and demagoguery, the pettiness and partisanship, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform." Barack Obama to La Raza..
...I suspect he's talking about 12 million illegal immigrants here. I believe he's calling all the rest of us hateful for wanting immigrants to apply legally, like millions have for a couple hundred years....we are hateful, though. I think he's also talking about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" to stop talk radio from bringing up things the democrats in the government don't want us to know.
Not-So-Special Interests Hold Parties Hostage
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:30 PM PT
We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot, but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by congressional Democrats and endorsed by Sen. Barack Obama becomes law.
Before there were secret ballots, voters dared not express their true preferences if those who watched them vote could retaliate — whether by firing them, beating them up or in other ways.
Anyone who is serious about people being free to express themselves with their votes wants a secret ballot.
The problem for labor unions is that workers in the private sector increasingly vote against being represented by unions. The proportion of workers in the private sector who are represented by unions has fallen below 10%.
Since unions are losing the game under the current rules, their obvious answer is to change the rules. Specifically, they want to do away with secret ballots when the government conducts elections to determine whether the workers in a particular company or industry want to be represented by a union.
With labor unions being major supporters of the Democratic Party — spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this year's election campaign — it is hardly surprising that congressional Democrats have lined up solidly behind legislation to let union organizers simply collect signed cards from a majority of workers, in order to be certified as the officially recognized union for those workers.
Of course, the union organizers will then know who did and who did not vote for them. And they may have long memories or short fuses, or both. Moreover, the workers themselves know that, so they may find it prudent to sign up for a union, whether they want one or not.
This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. "I will make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States," Barack Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.
Sen. Obama has also said many times that he is against "special interests." But like most politicians who say that, he means that he is against other politicians' special interests. His own special interests are never called special interests.
Excerpted from IBDEditorials....
