If you believe the truth that ended the second part is ugly, then what now follows is just as ugly. Recall that Obama is for change. He has changed in a most ugly way concerning life; that is life in a person who is disabled, namely Terry Schiavo who was starved to death because she was an inconvenience to certain ones who wanted her dead. A judge believed her husband that she wanted to die rather than live in a disabled state. She was starved to death by order of the judge. The truth is that convicted criminals and animals receive more consideration to keep them alive than did Mrs. Schiavo during the time she was a victim of a conscienceless group of people wanting her dead. Read the words of George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s attorney, "Frankly, when I saw her...she looked beautiful. In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her." How can starvation be considered beautiful and peaceful? (Read the final hours of Terry. If it isn’t truth, then nothing is the truth.)  

That brings us to Barack Hussein Obama, the nut job. He voted to save the life of Terry Schiavo when the bill was in the Senate. But being a proponent of change, Obama changed his mind. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued. Does he need to read the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Her witnesses were not believed and denied and her life was taken in spite of the fact she committed no crime. It can be logically concluded without straining the issue that Barack Hussein Obama believes that it was proper to starve Terry Schiavo to death. After all, her quality of life wasn’t good and she couldn’t enjoy liberty and happiness. The tyrant of Germany ordered those he considered to have no value terminated. With the blessing of a Florida court, starvation has become a way to terminate life, and whether you like it or not, Obama by regretting his vote, supports it. That is the truth and it’s ugly.

The weapons of the German people were subject to control in 1928 by the laws of the Weimer Republic and extended by the Third Reich in 1938. Hitler didn’t need to take over by the use of arms; rather he used political cunning and the ballot box to become the tyrant of Germany. His army controlled Germany so there wasn’t any need for gun laws to take away firearms. The people weren’t prone to fight so they were utterly defenseless against the onslaught. Those who would have fought back couldn’t for the lack of arms. But the fact that there weren’t any firearms among the people wasn’t lost on Hitler after he occupied Russian territory. He said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”

Mr. Obama supports another type of death also, known as limiting the ability of an intended victim of a crime to mount a self defense with a firearm. He is all over the park on the issue from I’m for control to I think there needs to be some reasonable rules. No matter how it is sliced, Obama is for gun control. Yes, it is much easier to control peaceful citizens than criminals. After all, decent citizens are much easier to find and prosecute than criminals. It is safer too.

It should be obvious by now that the only change that Obama understands is his changing his mind while hiding the true nature of the change he wants. Yet, he has brought change already and is proposing more change, but it’s not going to be what most will like if he gets away with it. In Sorting It Out, the change we need is going back to the Constitution and the limits on government. Most assuredly, that is isn’t the change Barack Hussein Obama has in mind.

07-20-2012  DEC