The first 100 days of President Obama

So we have made it thru the first 100 days under President Obama. The nation is still called America. This is still a democracy. The public, and more importantly the major media, still love President Obama. But this is no longer the nation that I grew up in.

There have been many changes under the Obama Administration, some due to the President and other due to the Democrat-led Congress. All of the changes have been based in the goals of the far-left and selected campaign promises.

Let's start with the appointees. There are many critical Cabinet positions that have yet to be filled. Several have had a revolving door of nominees, leaving some of the most critical positions that effect the economy open. Worse yet, there has been an undeniable consistency that virtually every Democratic nominee has failed to pay taxes, in some cases for multiple years, until nominated. Which is troubling in a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of way.

But beyond the appointees are other troubles.

President Obama has failed to live up to many of his campaign promises. The Guantanamo Bay Detention will be closed, eventually, though there is mass confusion on what to do with the detainees. Will some be imprisoned in American jails. If so at what higher cost than normal. If not in America then to where? So far only France has accepted exactly 1 detainee. So much for international support and their belief in President Obama.

President Obama has failed to increase transparency on 7 of 9 major laws since taking the Oval Office. This too was a campaign promise that was broken. The most notable case of this was the $787 billion stimulus bill. A stimulus package that does not spend all the money now, that limits the income level of those that can use it, that applies only to citizens that RECEIVE a paycheck, and is primarily a tool of social change.

There are numerous examples of millions being spent on projects like artwalks, skate parks, and non-existent homeless projects in cities without homeless problems. All of these are attributable to the stimulus package, and the fact that to this date almost none of the members of any level of the Government has read the full law. In fact almost no member of Congress or the White House read the entire bill before it was voted on and approved by Democrats. Nor did the public get a chance to read it before President Obama passed it into law. The reverberations of this are still being felt now.

Moving on, President Obama has enforced the ability to gain an abortion, even in later term pregnancies. Which is in line with his long-standing political beliefs, though not exactly the beliefs of the nation at large.

President Obama has approved the use of embryonic stem cells, another issue that flies in the face of overall public opinion.

President Obama allowed Congress to break the Constitution by retro-actively penalizing American citizens. This was in the form of specific and non-grandfathered taxes to the executives at AIG. These taxes were on bonuses that the executives received as part of their contract, that the Government did not renegotiate when they had the chance, and in fact guaranteed in the stimulus package that no one read. The Congressman that guaranteed the money? Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat and in charge of the Banking Committee.

Also, while violating the Constitution - which President Obama taught at one point - the concepts of all contracts were broken. In violating the contracts that the Government itself assured, all contracts are theoretically void. Because if the Government can break one it can break them all.

Plus the Government asserted its ability to control private business. First in taxing the AIG executive, thus stating the Government can retro-actively dictate pay. Then in forcing the removal of the CEO of a major auto company, while demanding changes to the operations of that company along lines that only the Government desired.

All this before the Government requested the expansion of power to allow the Treasury Secretary, an un-elected position, the ability to take over any company that it deems is significant to the nation based on undefined criteria. Which if passes will allow the Government to theoretically take control of any and all companies it chooses to.

But President Obama has done more. He has ended the Iraq War, by removing troops (a campaign promise) in an extended timeframe with the exception of 50,000 troops (both violations of the same campaign promise).

President Obama has also proposed his new budget. This is separate of the $410 billion continuation bill that was passed, also funding 9,000 pork-barrel projects. It was passed the same day that President Obama made a public outcry to stop wasteful spending by the Government. And it violated a campaign promise to end pork-barrel spending.

But the $3.6 trillion dollar budget of President Obama does not include the continuation bill or the stimulus package. It does include some $600 billion for a nationalized healthcare plan, that does not exist today nor have any plans of how it might be implemented. And this budget, going by President Obama's own best case figures will reduce the budget by 50% in 4 years. This part has been highly publicized. What has not been publicized is the rest of the budget plan.

President Obama's budget goes on after year 4 for a total of 10 years. By the end of that time, according to the President himself, the deficit will have increased by 250%. Few in the major media discuss this outcome, nor question how any plan that creates a larger deficit than it starts with can be called positive or effective.

But like every Administration, there have been bumps in the road. Besides the appearance that no appointee in the Obama Cabinet pays their taxes, while demanding that citizens must do so in greater numbers, there have been other gaffes. Like the recent decision to fly a plane over New York City without notification of the Mayor or any public notification - creating a panic based on the 9/11 events. There has also been the bow that President Obama bestowed - which has been described as everything but what your eyes will see in the video. There is the publicly friendly, and privately harsh, discussion with Hugo Chavez. There was the embarrassing gifts to our strongest ally's leadership and monarchy.

Yes the Obama Administration has had a hit parade. And these are only the most public and notable points. There are many other quieter, even less publicized actions affecting law and governance, and the appearance of the nation.

Like the now unspoken manner in which North Korea essentially turned it's nose up to the U.S. and fired a rocket that in one move threatened our ally Japan, and our nation itself. This cemented the fact that America has less respect and instills less fear than ever before on the world stage. An idea confirmed as our Secretary of State, and President, issued apologies for the existence of America and our actions to continue to exist.

Yet on the domestic side of the table things are even more unstable. America now fights terrorists, and the ideal of terrorism, by giving it a new name. The idea must be that there cannot be a terrorist act if the Government cannot call anyone a terrorist. That is except of Americans themselves.

Yes, because the Government - in the guise of Napalitano - has sought to isolate those that disagree with the governance of the land. Those that hold ideologies separate of the Administration, that have vowed to defend this nation with their life, and/or those that believe a religion strongly have been placed at the top of the list of dangers to America. Quietly, and without public scrutiny. The Amish and bloggers like myself be warned.

This is but the briefest coverage of the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Likely each point will be something ignored by the major media. Yet it is these things that define where America is truly going. And doing so with smiles. President Obama's approval rating is over 60%.

So though this has been used to describe President Bush, I think it more directly applies to the America that President Obama is shaping

"So this is how Democracy ends. With thunderous applause." - Princess Amidala in Star Wars Episode 3

But if the poll on my sites are correct, Democrats had best watch the clock carefully. Because their time in the sun may well be short. My poll results state that since the inauguration the total outlook by my readers that responded are

39% feel President Obama has kept his promises and is doing a great job
38% feel President Obama has BROKEN his promises and is doing a horrible job
16% feel they need more time to decide
13% feel President Obama is the same as any other President

My poll may be small, but I believe that my readers are some of the most informed, intelligent in the blogosphere (well overwhemingly most are minus the ones that shout profanities), and those from America are real representations of America. Thus I would state that this is the real view middle America holds.

So in summary, President Obama promised change. He never clarified what that meant or what he would change. After 100 days we now have an indication. It is a change indeed. Though none I know would have voted for this.

Thankfully we will have the mid-term elections soon, and might be able to reverse or hold off the worst of that change.

Greeting the Obama Administration

And now the shoe has dropped. Yes it has happened, an American now tops the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist list (or disgruntled native criminals or whatever the Obama Administration calls a terrorist these days). No one should be surprised. Not after the memos came out about targeting right wing conservatives.

Just the other day, as I was going to New York City, I was thinking about what this new direction the Obama Administration was taking meant to the average American. I noted that a Somali pirate, an Al Quida terrorist, or any number of other people and groups that dream of America ceasing to exist are all less important to this Government than my blog posts. Yep, my writing is more dangerous to America than Osama Bin Laden.

At least that is the indication the Obama Administration is making. Because I am a former Marine, intelligent, conservative, and Republican. That just screams extremist – especially when you consider that I reach over 125 countries and tens of thousands of people every month on my blogs alone. I write for over 100 in total.

Yes I am on a watch list of law enforcement because I dare to be all those things, and I disagree with the highly socialist bent of the current Presidential Administration. I’m sure of it, because Blogger just proposed to shut down my blogs as spam sites. They have only been around for over 3 years now. It’s resolved now, I think, but isn’t the timing interesting.

But how dare I mention this. Yet if anyone might think the proposal by the Government was harsh or politically motivated, someone had to be on the list that everyone agreed needed to be caught. Thus everything else is a coincidence, or paranoia.

It’s like a magician’s slight of hand. Let me distract you from the important issue of a Government becoming bigger and socialist by pointing at a danger. Don’t pay attention to the broken campaign promises or violations of the Constitution and law of the land, fear losing your job. Don’t notice the complete ineptness of the politicians in place, hate a miniscule group of people who get paid a lot of money (and forget that the Government chose to pay them that money). Ignore the focus of the media and Government to remove any commentary that is counter to what the Government approves of, remember that they are all radicals (not left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers but right-wing radicals which are bad of course).

Look, I understand the need to be aware. America is a nation of extremists by definition. We radically opposed the rule of England to create this nation. We are made up of people (most of whom) left their homelands because they objected to some part of the ruling government there. We have fought amongst ourselves – the Civil War, Japanese internment, killing off Native American Indians, slavery, and so on. We have every religion on the face of the planet all living right next to each other; and more wars have been fought over that than anything. So I get the concern.

But this is ridiculous. According to the Government wishlist not only am I a subject of concern and require law enforcement monitoring, but so do the Amish. Yep, the Amish.

The Amish are radically extreme in their religious beliefs. They are ultra-conservative. They do not conform to society. They are against stem-cell research, green energy, hybrid cars, abortion, teaching about condoms, and a host of issues that liberal Democrats in the Government are promoting right now. According to the imperative that unofficially the Government wants to pursue, the Amish must be on the top of the list. If that does not explain how absurd this orientation is, let me clarify it a bit more.

The Government is not looking to watch true radicals. People like Bill Ayers is missing from the people that is the focus of the watch lists. His brand of terrorism is completely fine it seems.

Bill Ayers is a self described anarchist. Which means he would love to see the Americans Government collapse. He was involved with a radical terrorist group, that sought to destroy the government, by force. He has written propaganda supporting these thoughts. He is politically active in trying to pursue these thoughts. But he is the friend of, and initial supporter of President Obama, so he and his ilk are fine.

Think about that. The Government is upset if peaceful objection (the tax tea parties as an example) occurs. Yet the blatant rants of self-proclaimed extremists – that have acted to destroy the Government in the past – are considered harmless.

The Amish, news commentators, bloggers like myself are all targets of the Government now. But left-wing radicals like Bill Ayers are good guys. Because people like me, make comments the Government does not like. And it doesn’t matter that we may have criticized the prior Administrations as well. Because only this current incarnation is important. And nothing should interfere with their goals.

That is the message I am getting.

Does that sound like America to you. When you look past the polispeak, the smoke and mirrors, and observe the changes the Government is making and their implications, do you see a freer America or an image of the old USSR? I have lived in Russia, and I say it’s the latter.

In fact ask anyone who lived in a socialist or communist nation. Ask them why they left. Ask them how close the actions of President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority leader Harry Reid match up to non-democratic nations. You may be surprised by the answer.

So for all the Government law enforcement officials I say hello. And keep on reading, because I’m not about to stop.

Caroline Kennedy - a name with no place in politics

I've waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.

Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.

Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.

Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.

Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.

In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.

It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.

And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.

And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a "car czar" (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.

And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.

Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.

But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).

So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.

Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.

Abortion and the 2008 election - results

The Presidential election was not the only thing that was decided in the elections on November 4th. Across the nation several states debated one of the more controversial issues in America since at least the 1970’s. Abortion.

The issue at hand in Colorado, South Dakota, and California essentially was the banning of abortion in all forms. As of 12pm I can say that in Colorado and South Dakota the ballot initiatives were soundly defeated. But California was still up in the air.

In Colorado the question for voters was

Defining “person” as at the moment of fertilization

This was defeated with a resounding 73% of no votes. So in Colorado, and as a legal example for the moment in the nation, life still begins at birth.

In South Dakota the question to voters was

Ban abortion except in the case of rape and/or the endangerment of the health of the mother [ie she will die otherwise]

Voters in this less dense than average state also rallied together for a 55% no vote. Obviously voters there feel that there are other reasons and circumstances that need to be included in any consideration of abortion.

But in California one of the most debated issues was on the ballot

Waiting period and notify parents of a minor prior to an abortion

As I stated that as of midnight this had not been resolved. This does not ban abortions, for minors or anyone else, but it is felt by some to overly restrict access to abortions. Effectively it achieves the same end as a ban. Considering how liberal California is on many issues this could go in any direction.

But overall no real headway has been made in the debate on abortion. It is still legal, and many find fault with the degree – or existence – that this medical procedure is used to.

With the election of a Democratic Congress, and an extremely liberal Democratic President who will likely replace at least 1 or 3 Supreme Court Justices there seems no question that nationally abortion will be here to stay. At least for 1 more year on a state by state level.

Do you agree with those votes? How would you voted on the California ballot?

Abortion - the 2008 election issues that is unspoken

In roughly 2 weeks the nation will be going to the election booths and selecting a leader for the next 4 years. That leader will be responsible for all the issues facing the nation today. The economy, the war in Iraq, potentially selecting Supreme Court Justices, and abortion to name a few.

Abortion is one of the bigger issues that the nation is very divided on. It has not been a main point of the debates nor in the media and pundits, yet millions will base their vote on this issue alone. Considering how strongly most feel on the issue I thought it deserved a bit more attention.

Just to be fair I will mention that I disagree with late-term partial birth abortions. I find that concept to be distasteful and painful just in imagining the act. I do understand how such a procedure can be performed to save the life of a mother, but beyond that I have no reason to accept this act.

Further I believe that men have no rights in any part of the thought of abortion these days. The media portrays men as callous and unfeeling, unreliable and prone to departure and as such deserve no voice in the matter. I feel that while this could be true of some men, it is not true of all men. I am not saying a man’s wishes should be the final decision, but that since it took 2 people to create the life in question some regard should be given to those men that wish to actively be involved.

And I do not believe in the concept of those that say that a baby is merely a visitor in a woman’s body. That the woman is the sole responsibility in how a pregnancy will play out. That the child has no right beyond that given to it to live.

Overall I am an advocate of choice with leanings to life, understanding that there are situations that create the need for an abortion. That does not mean that I am tunnel-visioned and cannot hear arguments on either side and evaluate situations as they are presented to me. Like life itself, abortion seems to me to be a situational decision that cannot be fit into slot A or B like policy on economics or building nuclear power plants.

All that said, the positions of the candidates are essentially the following as I understand it:

Obama supports the overall Democratic view that any form of abortion is permissible

McCain supports the view that abortion should be a decision of the individual state, as defined by that states population, and the Federal government should be outside that choice.

I state that Obama supports any form of abortion, including late-term abortions, due to his strong support of the Freedom of Choice Act (he is a co-sponsor of the bill, as is Senator Hillary Clinton). This Act assumes the thought that abortions are a Right, similar to the Rights detailed and outlined in the Constitution. While I agree that the Constitution is free to some interpretation, this claim is completely outside of its framework. There is no Right to abortions any more than there is a Right to suicide.

The Freedom of Choice Act asserts that abortion has affected the

“ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives”

Which seems to state to me that it is also stating that raising children is a negative for women, which I disagree with. And it seems to state that abortion is a form of contraception, which I think is foul. And I would even say that if a woman was really so focused on raising her economic and social life she could either not have sex, or ensure that contraceptives were used to prevent pregnancy, and/or ensure that her partner and/or she no longer had the ability to procreate.

But the Freedom of Choice Act also attacks the fact that there have been bans on abortion that disregard the health of a woman. That is equally a bad choice and a problem of law.

In essence my problem with the Act is most with the following language:

“the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The definition of that last part, when combined as a Right, allows for almost anything to be done. What is necessary for the health of a woman? Her emotional health, financial health? Does that include weight gain? Does that health provision mean serious changes in health or just cosmetic ones?

Thus under the wording that exists any form of abortion is allowable, which I disagree with.

But there is a problem with the view held by McCain as well. In backing away from a Federal mandate to allow abortions of at least some type, states could be pressured into making illegal any form of abortion, even when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not beneficial to women, or the nation.

If States are the only voice then women lose the strongest advocate in a truly personal and life changing decision. It weakens the ability of women to make this choice and opens the potential for ridicule and persecution of women that make this choice. I do not favor that kind of action.

So the question is which is the right choice for America? Which candidate would be most flexible? In my opinion Obama is less flexible than McCain. The Freedom of Choice Act is too vague and open to interpretation. It can be used to allow for abortion as a form of contraception, which I disagree with. And while McCain supports State decisions, he can be swayed to ensure an overall Federal support of the choice and legality of having an abortion.

Now without religion being brought into this discussion, which is a personal factor that does not apply to all citizens of the nation, which do you support? Will this make a difference in your vote? Is there a middle ground that the candidates should be looking to support? Is it possible to have a middle ground, and if so which candidate seems likely to reach it?

Clinton vs. Obama - is there a real difference?

So I was working on a couple of projects for clients and I was listening to a couple of pundits talk about the Democratic candidates. The specifics were that they were contrasting the positions of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

I wasn’t paying deep attention to the conversation, but after a bit I wondered why I didn’t notice hearing any real difference. Nothing really came to mind besides experience. And honestly neither has much experience. Unless you count Senator Clinton’s time as the wife of the President, which last I heard was not an elected position. I don’t count that, but I do count the time that Senator Obama spent as an elected Illinois State official.

So a while after the talking heads were off, I suddenly realized that I heard no substantive differences. And I thought about it for a few seconds, and realized that there are no differences. They are the same political position, the only difference being who you might believe can actually pull off the many promises each has made over the nomination process.

But my realization is not enough. I follow politics everyday, up to 20 hours a day. I don’t get distracted by mind melting crap like American Idol, so I actually recall and hear all the conversations the Presidential candidates have had. Most people neither have the time nor desire to do this.

To that end I decided to provide research on the subject. Looking at the voting records of both candidates I checked 16 categories (including Health, Abortion, Campaign Finance, Education, Gun Issues, Civil rights, Civil Liberties, Crime and more). Out of 152 votes over almost 3 years (2005 up to February 2008) there is a difference of only 9.9%. That’s 15 different votes in total. That’s 5 votes a year.

To me, that means they are exactly the same type of candidate, neither being more qualified nor providing a greater benefit than the other. No matter how the polispeak is spun, or what 30 second soundbites are used they both are planning to do the same exact thing to America.

Both Senators voted exactly the same on Abortion, Agriculture, Campaign Finance, Congressional Affairs, Crime, Environment, and Civil Liberties.

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

• Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment (Vote to adopt a non-binding, amendment that expresses the Senate's will that future military operation funds be included in the regular budget proposal and not in an emergency supplemental appropriation bill.) – Obama voted NV (not voting), Clinton was Yea
  
  
  
  Civil Rights:
  
• Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces (Vote to pass an amendment to reaffirm support for all men and women of the United States Armed Forces, to strongly condemn any attacks on General David Petraeus and all members of the US Armed Forces and to specifically condemn Moveon.org’s advertisement about General David Petraeus.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV. NEITHER would condemn the personal attack made by Moveon.org against our military! To me it’s the same vote.
  
  
• Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (Vote to pass a bill that amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to implement certain recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• REAL ID Funding (To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (Vote to pass an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society or transferred into detention facilities on American soil.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Education:
  
• Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants (Vote to pass a bill that makes changes to regulations and funding of federal student financial aid.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Energy:
  
• Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Vote to pass a bill that allows offshore oil and gas leasing in the 181 and 181 South areas within a year and plans to expand into the Eastern Planning, Central Planning and Western Planning areas at some future date.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted No
  
  
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Vote to adopt a conference report that develops an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy.) – Obama voted Yea, Clinton voted No
  
  
  
  Executive Branch:
  
• Attorney General No Confidence Vote (Vote to invoke cloture on a joint resolution that that expresses a loss of confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
• Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young University Thomas B. Griffith to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
• Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Griffin to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Family and Children:
  
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization (Vote to pass a bill that reauthorizes and expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Guns:
  
• Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment (Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. (Sec. 540)) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
  
  Health:
  
• FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment (Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety of imported prescription drugs.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV
  

Now this is not to say there are no other differences between the 2. Nor am I saying this is good or bad. But I am giving you the chance to see what are the real differences between the candidates.

Polispeak is one thing, but actual performance of their elected positions is another. Check out the laws and their records. You decide if they match what they claim and what is important to you. You have the knowledge now. Use it.

Let me know what you think.