With the latest polls, indications are that Barack Obama will likely be elected President of the United States. It is undeniable that the public is dissatisfied with President Bush, Iraq, and now the financial mess. All of this seems to be working against John McCain. Yet, I can only hope that voters will think long and hard before casting their votes for Obama. There are so many questions, so much doubt. I would like to outline why Obama should not be elected.
Experience
Barack Obama has served in the US Senate since 2004. His record in the Senate is negligible. He has no legislative accomplishments and has authored no legislation. Indeed, soon after arriving in the Senate, Obama launched his campaign for president, which has consumed his time ever since. Prior to that, he was a state senator from Illinois, being elected in the mid-90s. His record as a state senator in Illinois is also sparse.
Prior to being elected to the State Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago, work that his wife, Michelle, quoted as being something that no other candidate could boast. Yet, those years also have been filled with mystery and questions. What exactly did he do? What did he accomplish? Lately, some details have started to come out, which will be discussed later.
Aside from being a charismatic figure and a stirring speaker (when he has a teleprompter), there is little or nothing to suggest that Obama is prepared to be president.
Questionable Background
Obama’s early years are somewhat mysterious although he has authored two autobiographies by the age of 46. His father deserted the family when Barack was two. Rumors still abound that Obama might have been born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (which would make him ineligible to run for president). He has also been hounded by rumors that he was raised as a Muslim in his early years. Neither charge has been substantiated, and I do not give them credence.
After finishing university, Obama moved to Chicago, where he became involved in community organizing. It has now been revealed that part of his activities involved an association with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). This partially involved giving training classes for ACORN leaders.
Questionable Associations
Along with his inexperience, the issue of Obama’s associations are a prime concern. The list is long.
Jeremiah Wright
Most of the publicity has gone to Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Wright’s incendiary sermons have been seen all over the nation on TV, so there is no need to recount them here. When they became common knowledge, Obama was forced to disown the comments and deny that he had ever been present and heard the more controversial words. His handling of the controversy was clumsy at best. Initially refusing to disown Wright and the church, Obama tried to walk a middle ground between his black supporters and the white supporters he needed to be elected. Yet, Wright would not go away. His further comments, added to a bizarre sermon by Catholic priest, Father Michael Pfleger in which he derided Hillary Clinton in racial terms, only added fuel to the fire. Pfleger is a controversial figure in his own right. A few years back, he spoke at a rally in Chicago protesting a gun store owner. Pfleger, in his comments, all but threatened the owner with physical violence.
It has also been revealed that Obama, while a state senator and US senator, directed funds to Pfleger’s church. (St Sabina in Chicago).
Obama has now left the Trinity United Church and denounced Wright.
Yet, questions still persist as to how he could remain in that church for 20 years and not know what was being said by the pastor who married him and Michelle, and baptized their children. On one occasion, Obama conceded he had heard some of Wright’s more incendiary comments-then retreated back to his denials. Wright’s comments about America, coupled with Michelle Obama’s controversial comments about “being proud of her country for the first time in her adult lifetime” raise concerns about Barack’s (and Michelle’s) inner attitudes.
In short, Obama did not handle the Wright affair effectively or credibly. The whole affair leaves a lot of questions that have not really been resolved.
Tony Rezko
Perhaps even more serious than Obama’s association with Wright is his friendship and financial association with now-jailed financier, Antoin (Tony) Rezko. This wheeler-dealer was ostensibly a housing developer , who was also deep into Illinois politics-reaching into the Governor’s mansion of Governor Rod Blagojevich. Rezko was convicted this year by a federal jury in Chicago on corruption charges. He is a long-time friend, confident and contributor to Barack Obama.
It was Rezko who helped Obama purchase a home in Chicago under suspicious circumstances. Under the arrangement, Obama purchased his home at a below-market price. Rezko and his wife purchased the adjacent property at an above-market price then sold part of the lot to Obama. Obama has himself admitted that the deal was a mistake on his part.
William Ayres
William Ayres, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was a fugitive member of the Weatherunderground, a terrorist organization during the turbulent 1960s and 70s. Ayres and his cohorts were involved in bombings of the US Capitol, the Pentagon and New York City Police Hqs. He and his now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn eventually surrendered. Ayres was never prosecuted due to prosecutorial and investigator misconduct. On the eve of 9-11, he told an interviewer that he had no regrets about his activities and wished he had done more. Just a few years ago, he was photographed for a magazine standing on an American flag.
What is Ayres’ connection with Obama? It goes back to Obama’s first run for the Illinois Senate in the 90s. Obama was escorted to the Chicago home of Ayres and Dohrn for a meeting, in which they pledged their support for his candidacy. In addition, Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation with Ayres and participated in seminars with him. Obama has helped direct funds to Ayres’ school programs-which were designed to radicalize school kids. Ayres may no longer be a terrorist, but he is still a radical.
The mainstream media, typically, has been slow to dig into the Ayres connection. Yet, when Obama was asked about Ayres at a primary debate, he handled it awkwardly, describing Ayres as a professor who “lived in the neighborhood”. Obama condemned Ayres’ Weatherunderground activities, pointing out that they occurred when he (Obama) was eight years old.
ACORN
This shadowy, yet massive organization has offices in over 100 cities in the US in addition to Canada, the Dominican Republic and Peru. Headed by Maude Hurd, a long-time community activist, they are involved in a variety of activities on behalf of low-income families. Of most interest is their work in voter registration and lobbying Congress and banks to extend sub-prime home loans to lower-income borrowers. Their name has surfaced in the recent bailout crisis. According to their web site, the current financial mess is blamed on “predatory lenders’’-period.
In connection to voter registration, ACORN has been implicated in criminal investigations in numerous states. Several ACORN workers have been prosecuted for filing fraudulent voter registrations . They are reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department.
While ACORN professes to be non-partisan and to receive no federal funding, they have received millions from HUD, and they are little more than an arm of the Democratic Party. They are, in short, a left-wing organization. In the first draft of the bailout bill, Democrats attempted unsuccessfully to sneak funding for ACORN into the bill
During Obama’s community organizing days, Obama was involved with ACORN and provided their officers with training classes. He helped plan ACORN protests and also acted on occasion as their attorney in Chicago.
In addition, the New York Times reported on May 11, 2008 that while Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, he helped direct tens of millions of dollars to ACORN and other community organizations. (NYT article by Jo Becker and Christopher Drew dated May 11, 2008).
Liberal Philosophy
Finally, it is Obama’s liberal philosophy that argues against his election. Of course, if you favor a far-left president, then Obama is your man. Conservatives, of course, have no reason to consider voting for Obama. However, if there are people in the middle who are considering voting for Obama, they should seriously consider what kinds of “change” he will bring about. His inexperience suggests that his will be an administration marked by incompetence reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. In terms of foreign policy, his commitment to continue the War on Terror is suspect. He is against Guantanemo, so what will he do with captured terrorists-flood the federal courts with them? What about wiretapping those who are in contact with known terrorists abroad? And, of course, will he pull our military out of Iraq before we have achieved our mission there? Seemingly, he will. It is understandable that many are tired of what has transpired in Iraq. Yet, it must be realized that we are in a global war against radical Islam that has declared war on us. Whether Al-Qaida was in Iraq or not when we invaded, they are there now fighting against our military. The terrorists must be defeated in Iraq, and we are winning. I fear Obama would rob us of that victory.
In terms of taxes, it is obvious that they will rise under President Obama. That includes corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. He promises that 95% of families will get a tax break. Not with the programs he wants to institute. Since when do liberal politicians lower taxes? He also promises universal health care. Aside from the folly of turning health care over to the incompetent government, does anyone really think we can afford this?
Obama, of course, tries to appeal to a wide range of voters by downplaying his liberal leanings. Yet, the associations I have outlined above put the lie to that. No, Obama will bring in an army of appointees that will do the dirty work while he continues to position himself as a middle of the roader-much like Clinton did.
In addition, as President, Obama will have the opportunity to appoint numerous federal judges as well as probably 2 or 3 Supreme Court judges. This is an area where Obama really scares me. There is no doubt that Obama would appoint far-leftists to the federal bench. Carter did and so did Clinton. As a DEA agent, I saw first-hand how liberal Carter-appointed federal judges took the side of defendants as opposed to the prosecution. The judges who are appointed by presidents are lifetime positions. They continue to wield their influence long after a president has left office. One of the things that President Bush has done well is appoint quality judges (Harriet Miers notwithstanding). Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have held up numerous appointments. Thus, there are still plenty of vacancies to be filled.
In summary, Obama would take this country in a dangerous leftist direction toward bigger government and socialism that would not help our economy. The list of questionable associates and friends is too long to ignore. His inexperience and negligible record as a state and US senator raises the question of what qualifies him to be President in the first place. Great speeches shouldn’t alleviate those concerns.
I think one reason for Obama’s wide support is the idea that his election would help America get beyond race, which all of us want to do. With all due respect, I think that is an illusion. As I have said before, America is ready for a black president, female, president, Hispanic, Asian-American or whatever. I just don’t feel Obama is the right one.
Poll after poll in recent years indicate that most Americans consider themselves to be either conservative or in the middle with only a fraction calling themselves “liberal” (around 20+%). Therefore, I argue that Obama’s true beliefs and vision for America don’t fit those of the overwhelming majority of the American people. Yet, he has convinced many in the center that he represents their ideals. If only these people could see through the rhetoric and consider what this obviously talented man, Barack Obama, is really all about.
As regards John McCain, he also has his weaknesses. On occasion, he has let conservatives down. His running mate also has legitimate question regarding her own experience. Nevertheless, in these dangerous times, turning the nation over to Obama seems to me as nothing short of reckless.
Gary, what exactly is our mission in Iraq and at what point would it be accomplished?
ReplyDeleteWhere are you getting your data about the political makeup of our country? I've read things saying that the majority of the American population is actually well to the left of BOTH major political parties, hence our embarrassingly low voter turnout rates.
I think it would be interesting if you would write a post that is "The Case For John McCain." Specifically, I'm interested to know in what ways you believe a McCain administration would differ from the last 8 years of the Bush administration, possibly one of the worst in our nation's history. I'm very interested in specifics when it comes to that, because I have yet to hear any conservative really spell it out. So far it just sounds like McCain would be more of the same failed policies.
I'm not going to argue with you about this post though, because I myself will not be voting for Obama. For different reasons than you, of course, but if I am not supporting the guy, why waste my energy.
Our mission in Iraq?
ReplyDeleteFirst objective-Remove Saddam Hussein-done
Defeat our enemies in Iraq.
Leave behind a govt that is not allied with terror, not a threat to its neighbors and can defend itself. If it looks like the Shah (of Iran) I really don't care.
Whether we should have gone there or not- we are there. We should win.
If you think the majority of the American people are to the left of the Democrats, you are smokin' something.
As for writing a post on the case for McCain, I am undecided. If you read my early posts on McCain during the primaries, I was against him.
Wright’s incendiary sermons have been seen all over the nation on TV, so there is no need to recount them here.
ReplyDeleteHave they? No doubt I don't watch as much news as you do, but from what I can tell, all we have is that one 30-second (if even that) soundbite from one sermon that he gave. That hardly qualfies as "sermons" now does it?
The only thing that I've ever read by a nonbiased source who visited the church more than once was that one article I sent you some time ago. It was a white guy (who claimed to not even be an Obama supporter) who had been there several times and claimed that he had been made to feel most welcome every time he went. Now, I don't think that's enough on which to base an accurate and informed opinion of Wright's theology, but surely it's better, or at least as good, as that one little clip, right? Do you even take that into account when you form your opinion on this?
Don't get me wrong, I've seen enough of Wright to basically feel that he's another "holy man" who's nothing more than a big bag of wind - whose god conveniently has all of the same opinions that he does. As for Obama, I don't think that he's an extremist, mainly because he doesn't give the kinds of answers that extremists give - you know, very black-and-white responses. The man is too nuanced, and I'm sure that there were plenty of other things that Wright said that appealed to him, and he was able to overlook the more radical stuff.
The bottom line though is, as much as I don't care for Wright, I don't find his theology anywhere near as crazy or potentially harmful as I do the fundamentalists who have hijacked the Republican party for nearly 30 years now. (And please, don't give me the, "You seem to be against all Christians" spiel. I'm talking about a particular subset here.)
These people (and many of them are in office and are most definitely Republicans) think that we're living in the end times, and they are looking forward to a huge conflict in Israel so Jesus can come back and rapture them all up into heaven while everybody else suffers through a seven-year tribulation where the anti-Christ takes over. (You think I'm making this stuff up? Do a bit of research - there are people in charge of our country who believe this.) What motivation do people like this even have to try and make this world a better place if they think that Jesus is going to be back any minute now?
And where are all of the reasonable Christians who need to condemn these people and distance themselves from their zany beliefs?
And why didn't you even express a little bit of concern over the guy you liked (at least, out of the contenders anyway) and the fact that his theology teaches that Native Americans are really Jews, blacks are "cursed" with dark skin, and magic underwear can protect you from all harm? (And again, if you think I'm making this stuff up, you've got some reading to do.)
As far as Michelle Obama's comment is concerned, I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill with that one. But in all honesty, even if that's exactly what she meant, I can live with it. I don't know what it's like to live my life as a black woman, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. While that's an attitude that doesn't represent how I feel, I certainly prefer it to somebody who thinks that everything we do is perfect and everything is just 100% peachy-keen.
At least people like that have a motivation to try and make this world a better place - unlike those who believe that Jesus is going to be along any minute now to make everything better.
Oh, and did you see that video with Palin being blessed so she can be protected from witchcraft? It's on Youtube. I suppose that if you can show me a clip of Obama being blessed so he can be protected from werewolves, then I'll be a bit more concerned. Until then, I'll take a guy who might be unpatriotic over a woman who has a genuine concern about the Wicked Witch of the West.
P.S. Notice that I didn't even mention dinosaurs? Whoops! Just did!
Saddam was a terrible dictator, for sure. But he did not have terrorist connections nor was he a legitimate threat to his neighbors. None of the surrounding countries were afraid of him at that point. Not even Israel. The Shah of Iran was also a brutal dictator. So you're saying let's have another brutal dictator that doesn't have terrorist connections and isn't a threat to neighboring countries. In other words another Saddam, who happens to be on our side. That is unacceptable and leaves us right back where we started, if not worse.
ReplyDeleteSo you're not for Obama. You also might not be for McCain. Gary, are you a closet Nader supporter?!?! Not that our votes really matter here in California, thanks to our lovely electoral college system. But seriously, who do you think people should vote for?
Oh and I don't smoke. =)
Lance,
ReplyDeleteHave you been dippin' into that moonshine brew you make?
Magic underwear??? Isn't that a little over the line?
I cannot control who decides to bless Palin from witchcraft.
And....my head is exploding!!!
And where are all of the reasonable Christians who need to condemn these people and distance themselves from their zany beliefs?
ReplyDeleteRight here! *raises hand*
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteTell that to the Kuwaitis, Saudis and Israelis (and the Iranians). If, as you say, he was no longer a threat to his neighbors, it was because of our actions (GBush 1).
Let's look at it strictly from a moral point of view and leave out the other considerations. If you and the UN and the French and other Europeans had had their way (Iraq not be invaded), Saddam and his sons would still be there, the mass graves would still be filling up, the torture chmabers and rape rooms would still be in operation.
Why did our allies oppose the invasion? Because they were corrupted and bought off by Saddam's oil money and oil vouchers.
This is not to suggest that Pres. Fouse would have invaded for solely that reason. I would not have. Criticize Bush all you want (and I do in many areas). But when he goes to his grave, he will have on his resume that he removed two of the world's worst regimes and gave some 50 million people a chance to live in freedom. Yes, there has been a big price, but consider what I said.
Have you been dippin' into that moonshine brew you make?
ReplyDeleteMagic underwear??? Isn't that a little over the line?
Gary, do you think that I'm making that up? I'm referring to Romney, who, if I recall correctly, you liked best out of the Republican candidates. He's a Mormon. Mormons believe in magic underwear. Of course, they usually refer to it as the "temple garment." Here, read about it. Here's a quote: "...there are stories about people who got through car wrecks, floods and other calamities unscathed, and thanked the godly power of the underwear..."
Is this really the first time that you've heard of this? Also, I'm not making the thing up about the black race being "cursed" with dark skin. You criticize Wright for his racist remarks - doesn't something like that bother you a little?
I'm just the reporter here, Gary. You're right to think that this stuff sounds like it's coming out of somebody who's been drinking moonshine, but I'm not the one who actually believes it.
I cannot control who decides to bless Palin from witchcraft.
But she can, and doesn't that show a serious credibility issue that she receives such a blessing? Come on, if Obama did something similar, you'd be all over that.
Oh, and Bryan, I do know that you reasonable Christians are indeed out there (I know many of them personally). I just think that Gary is in some serious denial as to what a lot of supposed "conservative" Christians actually believe.
Hello! I am reading your blog for the first time. I am admittedly a bleeding heart liberal, but I can see beyond the talking points and understand your view of the world as well. I really enjoyed reading your well informed post, and while I will still vote for Obama, because I believe in liberal ideology, I definitely am impressed with the amount of homework you have done...you are the kind of voter everyone should be!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Kasandra, and feel free to comment on my posts any time. Disagreements are welcome.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteI am fully aware of the undergarments. A couple of our family members have joined the Mormon Church.
There is a lot about the Church that I don't agree with, but they did change their policy or tenet about blacks.
As for the witchcraft thing, I could care less about who blesses whom in this manner, be it Palin or Obama-or me.
I won't belabor the issue, Gary, but hopefully you can at least see how what Wright says doesn't bother me more than what a lot of other religious people say (and in some cases, it bothers me less).
ReplyDeleteAs for the witchcraft thing, I could care less about who blesses whom in this manner, be it Palin or Obama-or me.
What about a blessing to prevent the influence of vampires? Okay, I'm just being silly - I'll take you at your word. For me though, I find this sort of thing to be completely irrational, and I don't like the thought of my leaders being genuinely concerned about witches. It seriously makes me question their judgment.
To me, voting for Obaba is the height of irrationality, but I don't want to sound partisan now, do I?
ReplyDeleteRemember, I am an independent.
Spelling correction:
ReplyDeleteObama
Well, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for a guy named Obaba either. Especially if his full name was something like Forth Zorea Hitler Obaba.
ReplyDelete