We don’t have a thing in the world against Barack Obama, not in the way liberals think anyone does who dares to criticize his positions. We don’t wish him an ounce of ill will. We wish good things for he and his family. We regularly pray for his and his family’s protection and God’s blessings upon them, as we do for a number of others, regardless of political affiliation. We don’t have a problem with an African-American, or a Hispanic individual, or anyone of any race whatsoever being President of the United States. We think we make all of this abundantly clear in what we write on this website, but we say the above anyway, so that “for the record,” what we say is done so within those parameters. What we say we do not say in hate, but with love for our country, and with concern for its direction and how the problems which face us are addressed.
With all that being said, we also have to say, regarding this presidential race:
Are you kidding me?
Is it even a close question, of the two who remain as the major candidates for the nation’s highest office, leader of the free world, Commander-in-Chief, as to whom that person should be? With absolutely no disrespect intended toward Senator Obama, the choice to us is crystal clear: John McCain should be the next President of the United States of America.
Senator McCain is a war hero, someone who knows first-hand what personal sacrifice for the sake of one’s country is all about. Five years of his life taken away, spent taking beatings, torture, malnourishment, and isolation from his captors in that North Vietnamese prison. His adult life to that point had been spent in service to his country, and that service continued after he gained his freedom, and continues to this very day. No, he is not a perfect person. We know of only One who was. No, we don’t agree with him on every issue. We don’t have to, or he with us. He has, in his time in the U. S. Congress, always been his own person, willing to do or say what he thought was right, regardless of whether that left him in good standing with any particular group, including his own party.
We do believe that Senator McCain correctly recognizes the tremendous threat that terrorism poses to the security of this country, and to freedom everywhere. He knows that the United States can only respond to that threat in strength, and not in an accommodating weakness of appeasement, or a “please, please, like me” mentality put forth by too many on the Left. He has “been there,” as a leader and as a participant at our country’s highest levels. He didn’t get elected to the Senate a short time ago and immediately start running for President.
Senator McCain is a strong person, apparently too much so for some critics. We don’t find that to be a fault in the chief executive of our country, at least not when it is tempered with reason and courteousness, which we have seen him show to friend and foe alike. Yes, we have heard he has a temper, but all of us do, don’t we? Only, when it is a Republican and the media is involved, the standard is “perfection,” that not being a realistic level of attainment.
Senator McCain has long stood against the “earmark mentality” which describes too many in the halls of Congress, with their collective penchant for “pork barrel” projects to no end. While that earmarking certainly crosses party lines, if Senator Obama is elected President, we predict you will see that practice reach even higher levels–both from his fellow Democrats who will feel free to “rule the world” as they see fit, and from some Republicans who will “give” votes on certain issues in exchange for earmarking favors.
While no one can promise this practice will end with a McCain presidency, he has made his position on that “fatted calf” policy well known to all. If he is elected President, we have a chance to severely curtail earmarking. If Obama is elected, then Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia may need to add to the voluminous total of buildings already named after him in his state, since some of his colleagues (in both parties) might end up gaining on him otherwise.
Spending? Does anyone who is speaking or thinking objectively actually believe that an Obama presidency will curb our huge deficit in any meaningful way? We have rarely met a Democrat who commands attention on the national stage who did not like to spend your tax dollars, and spend them heavily. Today’s challenges of terrorism and border control mean spending money we might not have spent in the past, and that makes it harder to control the budget. But, under an Obama presidency, and especially if Democrats control Congress, spending will literally go out of sight.
Taxes? You want to pay taxes on anything you inherit? If Obama and his Democrat colleagues in Congress have their way, that will happen. Want to see your income taxes go up immediately? The Bush tax cuts are gone if he is in the White House. No, not just the tax rates on the “rich” will increase, but yours and ours as well. And that will be only the beginning of a huge increase in the tax burden on our country. Capital gains taxes will rise significantly if Obama has his way. Taxes on dividends will more than double if he is elected. You will pay tax on the sale of your home if he has his way. That leads us to the next topic:
The economy? Why in the world does anyone think that having a Democrat in the White House improves the economy? Without telling you what we do for a living, we will say that our profession deals with the economy on a daily basis. We have found little reason to look forward to a Democrat administration in the Oval Office, and believe that a strong commitment to the free enterprise system, usually championed by most Republicans, is the more effective way to “grow” the economy. That simply does not happen by “governmental fiat” or “edict”–Obama can’t “command” the economy to grow if he is president, but he and his party can do plenty to sink it if he and they are in control of our government. And, sink it, they will, in our estimation (and, no, we don’t want that to happen, unlike some Democrats that we are convinced want bad things to happen now, so that they will get complete control of our country come November).
We used to stump some of our friends who are Democrats who used to tell us that President Clinton “improved” the economy of the USA. We would say to them, “name one thing that President Clinton did to improve the economy, other than re-appointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve (and he was originally appointed by Ronald Reagan)?” Our friends would hem and haw, shuffle and sputter, and mutter something about NAFTA (ask any factory worker about that one), and not have much else to say.
Big Media did a highly effective job of not telling you that the economy was actually on the rebound prior to the election between Clinton and the elder Bush. Since that was one of Clinton’s “lead” issues, we would guess that “it’s the economy, stupid” wouldn’t have had quite the same ring to it had Big Media told you that the economy was on its way back before the 1992 election ever took place.
National security? Do we need to say much here? Obama has opposed the very measures that have helped keep us safe from additional terrorist attacks. Just what is the problem with intercepting suspected terrorists international phone calls without first getting a search warrant (which means the calls likely would not be intercepted)? Does that practice “infringe” on your rights or ours? We think not.
Just why is it that leftists are apparently more concerned about a terrorist having his privacy invaded than the rest of us having ours invaded by a suicide bomb?
Who do you think Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Palestinian extremists (like the ones who celebrated when 9/11 happened), the Taliban, and other Islamic extremists not otherwise included above, would rather have as President of the United States? No, we aren’t saying that Obama is “part” of those groups. But, if you think they’d rather see McCain in office than Obama, then watch out for the guy who tells you the check is in the mail. You’ll probably believe him.
Just why would they rather see Obama in office? Because they know they’ll have an easier time getting away with what they do–and, in case anyone out there has forgotten, what they do threatens our freedom and causes a lot of people suffering and pain. We have yet to see a “freedom loving” suicide bomber or terrorist.
The environment? Obama is clearly in the “pocket” of extreme environmentalists, led by Al Gore and others, who want sweeping changes, based on questionable “science.” We know that McCain wants “global warming” addressed as well, but we think it is obvious which one of those two will be willing to at least listen to those who don’t bow down to the god of global warming. If Obama and the Democrats are in control, “drill here, drill now” will likely remain just a bumper sticker slogan, rather than a reality.
Those of you who consider yourselves to be “eco-evangelicals,” you would seriously consider voting for Obama, given everything else at stake, just because he is a sympathizer to everything Al Gore is harping on? You have a candidate, in John McCain, who wants climate change addressed. Only, with him, he’s not about to jump off a cliff at the urging of Al Gore and a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats, just because they told him it was the thing to do.
Abortion? Yes, we know many of you “enlightened” ones think that “a woman’s right to choose” trumps everything on this issue. We respectively cannot agree. If you do not want the child, then let someone else take care of them. There are people who will. Yes, your child may not get the care he or she would, had you raised them and cared for them as you could, but at least they would have the chance to grow up–something you’ve already gotten to do, and apparently not done to fruition, since you don’t want the responsibility of raising a child but do think you are entitled to do whatever you want to, regardless of the consequences to others (and we say that to the fathers of those unborn children as well, not just the mothers).
If Obama is in the White House, you can be sure of two things. One, abortions will not decrease, they will increase. That is an understatement, most likely, since abortion on demand will likely abound, and partial birth abortions may become a federally-protected “right” if he and his party control our government. Secondly, any appointment he makes to the U. S. Supreme Court, as well as to other federal courts, will pass the Left’s “litmus test”–whoever he nominates to those courts will be someone unequivocally committed to continuing a woman’s “right” to have an abortion.
So, all you “independents” and “moderates” who think who you vote for might be a “close” question: if you call yourself “pro-life,” or are at the very least disturbed by the idea of unfettered abortions, including partial birth abortions, then how can you even consider pulling the lever for Obama? If you do, and he is elected, don’t dare criticize those who bring abortion-on-demand to new heights–your vote will have helped make that a tragic but stark reality.
The “culture war”? Obama wants you to believe that he is “for” family values, that liberals like himself are not really a threat to traditional notions of right and wrong. Ah, c’mon. Get real. Do you think for a minute that “secular-progressives” all over this country won’t jump stumps in giddy celebration if he is elected? They will know that their mind-set will then rule the day, and that “traditional values” will be on the way out, relegated to the garbage pile of “intolerant” thinking, as so described by those leftists who don’t like the way most of us view life. That bunch will be in “hog heaven” if Obama is President and liberal Democrats control Congress.
“Partisan” politics? Are you serious? John McCain has made a career of reaching out to those across the aisle, sometimes to the chagrin of his own party. Barack Obama is rooted in the far-left side of the national Democrats, a product of Chicago Democrat-machine politics.
You would be hard-pressed to name one issue on which Obama has forged any ground with Republicans, reached out to find a common ground, tried to make a partnership with the other side. Again, McCain has made a regular practice of that. Most of us are sick and tired of “partisan politics.” With John McCain as president, there will at least be a realistic chance that this overdone practice will be lessened, if not fall into disfavor. With Barack Obama at the helm, there is no chance that will happen.
To sum up, we cannot think of one reason why Barack Obama would make a better president of this country than John McCain. Again, we do not say that based on anything other than the two candidates’ positions on the issues, and their levels of experience and political leanings. And, to this point, we have not said a word about their respective political associations. If you cannot find any other reason to run away from the prospect of voting for Obama, then consider the “fruits” of some of his key supporters.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Finally reported on by Big Media, though it totally ignored this story for the longest, and isn’t saying much about it now. Obama’s campaign “uninvited” Wright from giving the invocation at Obama’s initial announcement for his presidential campaign–something about “you can get kind of rough in the sermons.” Someone who said that “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01”; “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” So, was Wright equating the murdering terrorists of 9/11 with anyone who could be considered a person “of color”? We don’t think most all people who could be defined as “people of color” would want to be associated with those vicious murderers.
Wright has been quoted as saying that a lot of Obama’s Jewish support “will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell” after it became known that Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan to Libya in 1984, to meet with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Thanks in no small part to Big Media’s PR job on his behalf, Obama’s Jewish support has apparently not disappeared. The snowball is still intact. Though we can’t think of anyone who would be a greater friend to Israel as President than John McCain.
Rev. Michael Pfleger, the Catholic priest from Chicago. He didn’t just spew his mocking tirade against Senator Hillary Clinton, which was reported to some degree. He has also called Louis Farrakhan “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”
Farrakhan has called white people “Satan” or “the devil” for years and years on numerous occasions, and called Judaism a “gutter religion.” In the recent past, he got an award from Obama’s church’s magazine, and Rev. Wright also called him a “hero.” And, no, despite Obama’s assumption to the contrary, there was no mention of Farrakhan “helping reform” prisoners as being the basis of his award by the church magazine–that wasn’t even mentioned.
Obama has called Wright a “great leader.” His campaign issued a statement that Senator Obama “is proud of his pastor and his church.” It is obvious to us that Obama has considered both Wright and Pfleger as being his valued friends and spiritual advisers. If he doesn’t believe as they do, then what is he doing having such close ties to the likes of them? Does that show the kind of judgment the country needs in the next President of the United States?
William Ayers. Another big supporter of Obama, this member of “the Weathermen” plotted bombing attempts on U. S. government sites, and put untold numbers of people into harm’s way. He wanted to blow up our government, for goodness sake. Any reason why anyone in the “mainstream” or touting good things for America would want this guy behind his candidacy?
We must return to the title of this column. When it comes to this presidential election, yes, perhaps the most important in our country’s history, and with all due respect to those who support Obama and to the Senator himself, we cannot fathom why this could possibly be a close question.
Are you kidding me?
|
|