To Dog Owners Who Support Obama

[Honey Pot Hounds]

To Dog Owners Who Support Obama

Is Your Freedom To Own Dogs The Most Important Issue?

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

The 2008 presidential election has become emotionally charged for dog
owners, resulting in a virtual brick wall that divides supporters of
Democrat Barack Obama from those of Republican John McCain. The two
candidates present a stark contrast in both style and substance.

As the campaign draws to a close, neither side seems willing to listen to
the other.

We are asking Obama supporters to hear us out, but want to be up front from
the beginning. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is opposed to Obama's
candidacy because of his close relationship with the Humane Society of the
United States and his political alliances with several key animal rights
movement supporters in Congress. We also think he has been dishonest about
his views regarding hunting and firearms, and these are issues of major
importance to many of our members.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this election as a watershed for
animal owners. We think that its outcome will determine the future of the
private ownership of animals in America.

We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next
president.

Some people may ask if this is really important in comparison with the
candidates' views on foreign policy, the economy and social issues. The
truth is that animal issues have played no role in this election for
mainstream voters, because the news media, political pundits and politicians
have not identified them as important.

But they are important to us.

We also believe that these issues should be important to everyone, because
the way Obama would implement the animal rights agenda is a perfect
microcosm of his views on the future of America. Those views accurately
predict Obama's approach to foreign policy, the economy and social issues.

Throughout American history, animal ownership has been regarded as a
personal choice. Each individual has had the freedom to own animals or not,
to eat them or not, to enjoy them or not, and to hunt or not to hunt.

It has been freedom based on the idea of "live and let live." You do your
thing, and I'll do mine.

The principle was to create a society that is based on the maximum possible
amount of freedom for each American to live the way that he or she chooses.

America was founded on the simple yet radical principle that the purpose of
human life was to be happy. The Declaration of Independence used the words
"pursuit of happiness" as a vital aspect of freedom. What makes a person
happy was seen as each person's private choice. Government was seen to exist
only as a way to ensure the greatest opportunity to make and pursue personal
choices.

"Happiness" was not mentioned specifically in the Constitution or Bill of
Rights, because it was seen as a given. Those documents attempted to create
a government that provided the greatest possible opportunity to pursue
choices in one's life, and to protect Americans from both foreign and
domestic threats to our freedom to make personal choices and live our lives
accordingly.

All of the complex protections of due process, voting rights, civil rights,
checks and balances on political power, and redress to the courts boil down
to exactly that: Protecting our freedom to make and live by personal
choices.

Our relationship with animals is one of the choices each of us has had the
freedom to make and live by. It was part of our American identity, and still
is for most of us.

It was all about the freedom of the individual.

In the Twentieth Century, however, a new philosophy swept over much of the
planet: Collectivism. It boils down to a belief that "social good" is more
important than the individual. It defines benefit to society as a higher
value than benefit to the individual.

It was a philosophy of sacrifice, maintaining that each person should be
willing to sacrifice him or herself to "the greater good," which was defined
by the collective. In real life, the collective usually translates into
government and those who have the power to influence it.

This philosophy was at the heart of Marxist/Leninist thought, and it also
was the underpinning of Nazi ideology. In both cases, the collective - that
is, government - became the sole arbiter of how people must live. Government
existed under the pretext that its job was to define and promote the common
good. This was seen as the highest value - not freedom!

Collectivism actually is a very old idea that reached its greatest influence
during the Medieval Period of European history, when the concept of
individual freedom was viewed as heretical. During the Dark Ages, the
purpose of human life was to serve and glorify the monarchy and the church.
A belief in basic human rights and individualism often led to being burned
at the stake.

In light of this historical background, the American emphasis on personal
freedom was truly revolutionary. It's core belief is that the job of
government is to protect freedom so that people could live the way they
choose. Many people mistakenly believe that this was meant only to protect
people from religious and political oppression.

In fact, it was meant to protect the individual from any kind of oppression
that threatens the individual pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. The
right to own and enjoy property was a major issue for the founding fathers,
as this is basic to the freedom to pursue happiness.

Obama represents the modern reincarnation of collectivist thought, and his
views and alliances on animal rights issues illustrate this clearly.

The endorsement of Obama's candidacy by the radical Humane Society of the
United States should send up a hailstorm of red flags for anyone who values
individual freedom. The HSUS ideology embraces collectivism in its purest
form.

Without exception, every political position advocated by HSUS boils down to
a belief that individuals have an obligation to society to sacrifice
individual freedom in order to achieve the "common good" - as defined by
HSUS. Every HSUS position tells animal owners that they must sacrifice their
own freedom in order to pay for the sins of a few people who treat animals
callously.

For example, everyone knows that there are a few bad "puppy mills" in
America that should not be allowed to exist. All of us would agree with that
statement, including owners of commercial breeding kennels.

But HSUS argues that these few bad kennels make every breeder of dogs
suspect, and that this requires "Big Brother" to look over his or her
shoulder in order to protect dogs from exploitation. It is like saying that
we shouldn't enjoy our supper because people are starving in Ethiopia, or
that all parents should be licensed and inspected because a few of them
abuse their children.

The fallacy of this argument is easy to see. All of its premises are utterly
illogical.

It assumes that government is somehow morally superior to individuals, and
that government can be trusted more than people. Read any history book for
an hour and the flaws of this argument become apparent. Throughout history,
government has been the greatest oppressor of people, animals and the Earth
itself - by far! I doubt if Al Capone harmed as many people as the average
corrupt restaurant inspector in Chicago.

It assumes that the answer to bad government is more government. HSUS and
Obama believe that current laws are not being enforced. Their answer is to
create new laws, which is a laughable example of intellectual absurdity. The
answer to bad government is to make it work better, not to create new laws
and bureaucracies whose only purpose is to burden and oppress good people.

It assumes that exploitation of animals is the norm, rather than the rare
exception. Anyone who raises dogs knows that this is absurd. The lives of
dogs have never been better at any time in human history. They are beloved
members of millions of American families, most breeders dedicate their
entire lives to their animals, and thousands of dedicated rescue people save
the lives of millions of dogs that are doomed to suffering and death in
government-run animal shelters.

Would you want the fate of your dog to rest in the hands of any
government-run animal shelter in America?

And yet, HSUS and Obama see government as the answer.

Obama's well-documented belief that government is the answer to America's
problems is at the heart of our objection to his candidacy.

For example, every improvement in the lives of dogs in America is solely
because individual people have made personal and ethical choices that
benefit their animals.

No improvement of any kind can be attributed to the actions of government.

Each political victory by HSUS and its allies in government has resulted in
terrible suffering for animals. For example, the HSUS-backed ban on domestic
horse slaughter has led to tens of thousands of horses being trucked to
Mexico, where they are slaughtered under the most inhumane conditions
imaginable. Every mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has led to the terrible
deaths of thousands of abandoned pets at the hands of government-run animal
control programs.

Compassion for animals is one of the highest human virtues. It happens only
through the dedication of individuals. Compassion and government are
mutually exclusive concepts.

The HSUS endorsement of Obama is but the tip of the iceberg.

Consider that his primary political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois,
has been the major proponent of anti-dog-owner animal rights legislation in
Congress. Durbin is the sponsor of the current "PUPS" legislation that would
extend the heavy arm of federal bureaucracy into most kennels in America,
and also was the author of the failed amendment to the Pet Animal Welfare
Act that was attached to the 2008 Farm Bill.

Obama's main allies in Congress read like a "Who's Who" of radical animal
rights activism: defeated Sen. Rick Santorum (author of the failed PAWS
legislation three years ago), Sen. Diane Feinstein, Rep. Dennis Kucinich,
Sen. Ted Kennedy and several others. Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden,
consistently gets 100% HSUS ratings.

The Obama ticket is an animal rights dream team.

Please remember, too, that political endorsements and support come with a
price tag. We believe that price tag includes:

* Support for federal animal rights legislation to restrict dog
ownership and virtually eliminate the breeding of companion animals. A
federal spay/neuter mandate is likely, as are prohibitions about using dogs
for hunting, herding or in competitive events. These are all parts of the
HSUS agenda.

* Support for the camouflaged but very real HSUS agenda of forcing
America into becoming a vegetarian society. This would be done by increasing
federal regulation of farming, ranching and slaughterhouses with the goal of
making meat, milk and eggs too expensive for most people to afford.

* The gradual elimination of hunting, both by outlawing specific kinds
of hunting and also by changing policy to eliminate hunting as a tool in
wildlife management.

* Naming HSUS-sanctioned people to be the new Secretary of Agriculture
and Secretary of the Interior, and also filling many administrative and
leadership vacancies in both Departments with HSUS-anointed personnel.

* Creating a federal task force to study and recommend legislation on
animal issues that is heavily weighted toward HSUS.

* Nominating pro-HSUS judges to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court,
federal appeals courts and federal district courts. Even if judicial
nominees don't have a track record on animal issues, it is likely that most
of the nominees will strongly support the concept of federal intervention on
social issues, and strong opposition to the concept of private property and
the rights of individuals.

* And, based on Obama's track record as an Illinois state senator and
his endorsement by gun control groups this year, many restrictions on the
right to own firearms are likely. This also is a major goal of HSUS.

When it comes to political paybacks, to the victor go the spoils.

The HSUS Legislative Fund's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to
endorse Obama. This is the first time ever that HSUS has endorsed a
candidate for president, and this says a lot about the importance of Obama
to HSUS.

This endorsement didn't happen out of the blue. Our review of the HSUS
questionnaire submitted by Obama shows clearly that he actively sought the
endorsement. He wanted it. He went after it. Obama stated his total
acceptance of every HSUS position on dozens of different pieces of animal
rights legislation. He did not disagree with any of them.

As dog owners, we cannot ethically support any candidate who is in
100-percent agreement with HSUS.

Here is how the HSUS announcement describes Obama:

" <http://obama.senate.gov/> Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a
<http://www.fund.org/humanescorecard/> solid supporter of animal protection
at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he
backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to
strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to
promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human
consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple
bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported
efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare
Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal
fighting and puppy mills.

"In <http://hslf.typepad.com/political_anima ... ent-3.html>
his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every
animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work
with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane.."

That statement is a nightmare come true for dog owners, farmers and hunters.
It also is a nightmare for any American who believes in the sanctity of
individual freedom.

An Obama victory, especially by the wide margin now shown in the polls,
would place collectivists in firm control of both houses of Congress and the
White House. Obama and HSUS would be able to get almost any law they want.

What all of those laws will mean is that government will not respect your
freedom to make and live by your personal choices. You will be required to
sacrifice your life to the collectivist ideal of "total animal liberation."

That means the elimination of almost all breeding of dogs. That means tight
restrictions on the ownership of dogs. That means laws making it impossible
to raise food animals, or for most people to be able to afford to buy animal
products. It means the destruction of hunting and gun ownership.

It will all happen in the name of the "common good," as defined by HSUS and
Obama.

The animal rights agenda is a totalitarian philosophy to force you to
sacrifice your life to achieve the political goals of HSUS. Obama quite
clearly has signed on to that agenda, and his signature is written in your
blood.

Like most totalitarians, HSUS favors only "top down" leadership. For
example, they know it is hopeless to try to convince Americans not to eat
meat or to raise dogs. They don't even bother to try. Instead, HSUS pushes
for laws aimed at making it impossible for Americans to afford to eat meat
or raise dogs.

The strategy is to gradually remove meat and dogs from the lives of a large
majority of Americans, until the day when those things don't matter any
more. At that time, they will be politically able to achieve their
long-range goal of the complete elimination of animal ownership in America.

Obama is a key part of that strategy, because of his willingness to support
"do-gooder" animal rights legislation, even though very few Americans are
asking for those laws. The animal rights movement is not a popular uprising
of political sentiment. Instead, it is an elitist movement that reflects the
view of only a small but politically well connected percentage of the
population.

Through his support of HSUS, Obama has shown clearly that he is an elitist
who is willing to impose the extreme views of a small minority on America to
achieve a collectivist goal. If he will do it about dogs, he will do it
about any social or political issue.

Freedom is his enemy. Personal choice is his enemy.

Collectivism is all about using governmental power to force people to
conform.

In that light, we are especially concerned with the power Obama will have to
nominate Supreme Court justices, and other federal appeals court and
district judges.

The constitutional system of checks and balances sees the courts as the
citizens' final avenue of redress when their rights are infringed upon by
the legislative and executive branches of government. The courts are meant
to be a check of that power.

For dog owners, the courts are our last line of defense against bad laws
that take away our rights to own and enjoy animals.

Obama will nominate the kind of judges who will be inclined to limit
individual liberty in order to achieve collectivist social goals. They will
believe that individuals must sacrifice personal freedom in order to create
someone else's idea of a better world. They will see the right to own and
enjoy personal property as something evil.

This year's Supreme Court case about firearms rights illustrates this
viewpoint. In this case, gun control advocates tried to claim that
individual rights do not exist. Instead, they attempted to say that there
are only "collective rights" of the American people as a whole - as they
define them.

This was the actual argument used by Obama's allies to try to say that the
Second Amendment does not apply to you and me, but only to an undefined
"us."

Obama has claimed that he is not opposed to firearms ownership and hunting.
We believe he is not telling the truth, and is really saying that he is not
opposed to his definition of acceptable firearms ownership and hunting.

His track record as an Illinois state senator shows this clearly, and we are
indebted to Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard
Pearson for making this important information available to the voters. He
was the ISRA's chief lobbyist during the years when Obama was a state
senator in Illinois.

Here are excerpts from Pearson's account of Obama:

"I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator.
As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun
owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol
I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding
firearm owner than does Barack Obama."

"Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting
record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state
senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle,
shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would
authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly
confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down
law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite,
Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would
prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month."

"Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law
abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a
friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times
against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense
of home and family."

"Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun
owner?"

"And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they
keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade
Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and
pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of
Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed
to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who
has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm
law-abiding citizens."

"Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to
fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of
the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions
of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois
Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center."

Firearms issues are important to many of our members, and probably half of
them are hunters. We also recognize that many dog owners do not own guns or
want to own them.

However, we believe Second Amendment issues are important to all Americans.
If a politician is willing to destroy even one of our freedoms, then none of
them are safe. To compromise one part of the Bill of Rights is to endanger
all of them.

Firearms issues also are important in understanding the collectivist
mindset. Because an infinitesimally small percentage of firearms owners are
criminals, collectivists believe that the other 99.99-percent should
sacrifice themselves for the "common good."

The call to sacrifice extends even unto freedom itself.

We cannot support any political candidate who has demonstrated a willingness
to sacrifice any of our basic American rights. Obama has shown that
willingness and, we believe, fully embraces collectivist calls for the
sacrifice of the rights of innocent individuals in order to achieve his
social goals.

It is a mindset that would willingly destroy the lives and livelihoods of
millions of American farmers, dog professionals, hunters, dog owners,
hobbyists and the tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on them, in
order to impose Obama's vision of a "New World Order" on America.

We believe Obama would destroy those people without batting an eyelash. He
would see himself as the righteous defender of animals, but doesn't want to
see the truth.

The people who own animals are the people who defend and protect them.

Animal rights groups like HSUS want to destroy them: as gently and gradually
as practical, perhaps, but destroy them nonetheless.

Please do not vote for Barrack Obama.

For your dogs' sake. For your sake. For everyone's sake.

Just say no to Obama.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and
professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We
welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect
all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog
owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and
humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can
continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership,
participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission.
We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict
independence.

Please visit us on the web at <http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/>
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
<mailto:ASDA@csonline.net> ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by
mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

Have You Joined Yet?
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

[TC]

Good Post Cindy! Yeah and I heard on the radio on my way to work that NoBoma is not for gun control this man cannot make up his mind... I feel he is gonna say what ever it takes to get him elected. The Radio ad endorsed by him went on to say that it is the american way of life to hunt and fish and he supports the hunters and fishermen of America, that McCain does not. HUMMM looks like he is double talkin to me...

[TC]

Think I should have posted this under we need prayers!

A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. The Most Critical Election in your Lifetime 10/21/08

Dear Friends,

Early voting has already begun and November 4th is fast approaching. The outcome of this election will have far reaching and long lasting impacts on animal agriculture, hunting, and animal ownership. Amid all the political rhetoric and campaign ads, important serious warning alarms are sounded. The combination of a Democrat supermajority in Congress and a liberal Democratic president will structurally imbalance our government to historic proportions. Constitutional checks and balances will be voided, making this the most critical election in your lifetime. Every aspect of American life could change.

The Wall Street Journal editorial below observes: “If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.”

In the area of animal issues, nearly 40 bills introduced on behalf of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) weren't passed by the 110th Congress. Strong Democratic wins could be a guarantee that many of these bills are likely to become law in the next Congress.

In 2006 a GOP Senator blocked the horse slaughter bill from being heard and voted on the Senate floor. More recently HR 6598, the horribly misguided and misleadingly named Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, received a favorable vote split along party lines. HR6598 would turn horse owners and ranchers into felons for having a connection to a horse transported for slaughter. HR 6598 is likely to return in 2009. http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.as ... tID=261648

The Pet Animal Welfare Statute 2005 (PAWS) was thwarted by a GOP and moderate controlled Senate Agriculture Committee in 2006 and was re-introduced in September by HSUS supporters as the Puppy Uniform Protection Statute (PUPS). After 8 years of failed attempts to regulate retail dog breeders, will the 2008 election finally bring victory for HSUS in its goal to federally regulate home hobby dog breeding?

RESHAPING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The next president will have extraordinary impact on the ideological shape of the nation’s federal courts for decades to come. It is likely the next president will appoint Supreme Court judges as six of the nine are turning 70. In addition, hundreds of federal and appellate judges will be appointed. Appellate appointments shape lasting constitutional interpretations and they cover multiple states. Although these require Congressional approval, that will be a slam-dunk if this election creates a Democratic supermajority. One out of three federal judges now owes a lifetime-tenured job to the current president.

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that judges should interpret the law as it is written. Seventy-four percent (74%) of men favor that approach along with 65% of women. Sen. McCain supports that view and he has consistently campaigned on a “strict constructionist philosophy” for the courts.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, believes that judges should be required to possess “empathy” and should “reach decisions on the basis of his deepest values, core concerns, and broader perspectives on how the world works.” During the Roberts nomination debate, Sen. Obama stated, “Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

Considering the skyrocketing number of lawsuits filed by HSUS and other animal rightist groups to ban hunting, change livestock regulations, and alter husbandry standards, the stakes are very high for the animal owning public. The best interests of animal owners, hunters, and ranchers would not be served by liberal appointees who choose to rule based on imaginative and empathic interpretations of property rights and the constitution.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Vote on November 4th. It's the most critical election in your lifetime.

Please cross post this message widely.

Susan Wolf
Director, Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA)

The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers lobbying legislation and seeking to elect politicians who will oppose the animal rightist threat to our rights as Americans. Our members hunt, fish and own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. For more information about SAOVA visit http://saova.org/
*****

ATTACHMENT

Wall Street Journal
October 17, 2008

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224202 ... #printMode



The message above was posted to West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of ten regional read only elists.

SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.

[Honey Pot Hounds]

This is seriously bad news for us considering the Dems will have WAY too much power. Honestly I don't think it's in our best interest for either party to hold ALL of the power. DEEP BREATHES.....DEEP BREATHES.....

[Pike Ridge Beagles]

btt