The Audacity of McCain’s Choice

Reading through various articles and listening to the pundits scratching their heads over McCain’s choice for his VP, I can’t help but wonder:

Do they even have a clue?

While I was in Germany, I listened to Obama introducing his choice, Senator Biden, and listened the acceptance speech from old Joe.  There was absolutely nothing that was inspiring about the selection nor the speech.  All I heard was the same old Party line, which makes me wonder where the “change” went.  It is interesting that Obama makes a choice from the old boys club (and part of the problem of politics as usual) while advocating that things need to change.  A rather contradictory selection, if you ask me.

McCain, on the other hand, selects someone who not only is from outside Washington, but who has told her own Party (and the Washington heavyweights) to effectively stuff it.  McCain’s choice fits right in with his character of bucking the system for the American people and within his own Party.  There has been a lot of speculation on his selection of a VP candidate, but this choice was completely off the radar.  Yes, McCain wants it his way, and how!

I listened to Governor Palin’s acceptance speech, and was blown away by several statements.  By making those statements and her choices within her political career, Palin has established herself as being much closer to the average person than any of the candidates, including Senator McCain.  Yes, she may be light on the political resume, but she is exceptionally heavy on the common-sense do-the-right-thing qualification.  She is easily a person that I could get behind for President should she ever want to run unless she steps into some heavy doo-doo from here to election day.

So if you want change for the better, it’s not going to be the words and slogans of the Democratic candidates who seem to be promising much more of the same old s**t as usual, but the take no prisoners & loose cannons on the Republican ticket.

Obama, Poverty, and S.2433

Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Obama introduced Senate Bill S.2433 titled “Global Poverty Act of 2007.” The goal of this bill (and it’s House counterpart HR1302) is:

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

A rather lofty and worthy goal, isn’t it? I have several problems with it, however.

The first problem is that the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) is administered by the United Nations, probably one of the most corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies known to history. As has been proven by the “Oil for Food” scandal, huge amounts of cash and aid found itself in the pockets of corrupt officials (both in the UN and the targeted countries) and not in the hands & mouths of people that needed it.

Which leads me to this fact that is conveniently overlooked by the pointy heads in the UN and other charities. Poverty is a weapon that is used by repressive governments in Africa and other parts of the world as a method of keeping their populations in check. If the people are too busy trying to find something to eat and are physically weak besides, the chances of a rebellion overthrowing the ruling government becomes rather slim. It’s not that the people are choosing to be poor and starving, its because their governments want them to be!

I have heard stories of foodstuffs, medical supplies, and other necessities rotting on the docks of countries ruled by despots and military juntas. Why would I believe that the MDG as administered by the UN and funded by the US & other countries would make a significant dent in the misery of these countries? They sure as Hell haven’t made a difference in places like Somalia and Darfur, have they?

The next problem is the cost of this world-wide social program to US taxpayers. I understand that the planned amount is 0.7% of America’s Gross National Product (GNP) or $65 billion per year, although there are a couple of estimates that it could go as high as $84 billion per year. The bill doesn’t specifically note the amount of money that would be “donated” to this cause (more on this below), it is understood that this commitment would be in addition to America’s current foreign aid budget. With all the economic problems that the United States is undergoing with the mortgage & energy crises and a growing national debt, do we, the taxpayer, need an additional burden? I think not.

Besides the above concerns, what about the Government’s current fight on domestic and overseas poverty?

From Poverty in the United States by Isabel V. Sawhill:

Poverty is one of America’s most persistent and serious problems. The United States produces more per capita than any other industrialized country, and in recent years has devoted more than $500 billion per year, or about 12 percent of its gross national product, to public assistance and social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, and Medicaid. Despite our wealth and these efforts to reduce income inequality, poverty is more prevalent in the United States than in most of the rest of the industrialized world. It is also more prevalent now than it was in the early seventies, when the incidence of poverty in America reached a post-war low. According to the Census Bureau, 33.6 million Americans were poor in 1990, almost 14 percent of the population.

These official figures represent the number of people whose annual family income is less than an absolute “poverty line” developed by the federal government in the midsixties. The poverty line equals roughly three times the annual cost of a nutritionally adequate diet. It varies by family size and is updated every year to reflect changes in the consumer price index. In 1990 the poverty line for a family of four was $13,359.

A graph by the US Census Bureau shows that the number of people classified as poor or in poverty has fluctuated between 22 million to 40 million over the past 40 years. So we, the taxpayers, are spending billions of dollars helping people within our country, but will never totally eliminate poverty.

From Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal By Jonathon Moseley:

Starting with the Marshall Plan after World War II, and accelerated by John F. Kennedy’s idealism, Americans have spent gigantic fortunes on ending poverty globally, for at least 60 years.

…Helping poor countries is why the U.S. government priced U.S. manufacturers and exports out of the market with a strong dollar policy and encouraged imports of products from poor nations.

If the US is fighting domestic and world-wide poverty on it’s own, then why use the corrupt UN as a middleman? Again, from Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal By Jonathon Moseley:

Obama’s Global Poverty Act is in fact a stunning and sweeping step toward socialism and one-world government. When we look beyond the seductive title, and read the actual contents, we discover that Obama and Biden are setting America up for imposition of a global tax, controlled by the United Nations. For the first time, the U.S. could be forced to adopt a global tax at the behest of an international body. The planned amount is 0.7% of America’s Gross National Product (GNP) or $65 billion per year, in addition to America’s current foreign aid budget.

…the bill does not attach a dollar figure—and does not need to—because that is contained in the 2002 so-called “Monterrey Consensus,” which grew out of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, which is cited in the bill. Understanding this critical fact is a simple matter of reading the appropriate U.N. documents.

The Millennium Declaration, which was issued in 2000, specifically called for a “Financing for Development” conference, which was held in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico, and produced the “Monterrey Consensus.” This document committed nations to spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid. It says, specifically, that “We recognize that a substantial increase in ODA and other resources will be required if developing countries are to achieve the internationally agreed upon development goals and objectives, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration.” It goes on to call for “concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 percent” of GNP as ODA and proposes “innovative sources of finance” to pay for the increased foreign aid, a reference to global taxes.

S. 2433 is clearly setting the stage for a global tax, by backing the U.S. into a corner. Once the U.S. commits through international diplomacy to the goal of contributing 0.7% of its GNP and the Congress enforces this goal through Obama’s legislation, the U.S is on the road to accepting the global tax to pay for it.

This is the critical point: S. 2433 mandates that the president actually implement these goals and not merely discuss them. A future president— possibly a liberal like Obama himself— would be obligated to actually “make it happen.” Obama’s bill does not just declare policy. It mandates actual implementation of the $65 billion-a-year “contribution” to foreign aid by the next president. If the U.S. has already agreed to this through Congress, the final step in international negotiations over implementation of a global tax will become difficult, if not impossible, to resist.

So now we have a hint of the truth – it is not the Republicans as led by George Bush who want a world government as the Liberals stated when Bush was elected, but the Liberals themselves. Not only will the United States be taxed by a semi-hostile organization, it will then open itself to judgements, legislation, and rule by the UN, which, in turn, will lead to a loss of sovereignty.

When coupled with the previous post, I am extremely concerned about the Democratic candidates for President / Vice President and Congress. These people have the ability to destroy the United States one piece of legislation at a time. I think it’s time to clean the political house and start over with a clean slate…

For your convenience, here is a link to S.2433 at www.govtrack.us.

My thanks to darwin in the comments section of The Political Jungle for bringing this to my attention.

Update:  Senator Obama has no problems sending your tax dollar overseas to help impoverished people, but won’t lift a finger (or send a dollar) to his own blood relation.  Read it at The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth.

Communist or Liberal Agenda?

The following was read into the Congressional Record by House of Representatives Herlong of Florida on January 10, 1963.

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting p0rnography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

In reading the above, it is highly disturbing to me that so many of these goals have come to pass.  For instance –

  • 11) Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. How many times have we heard that the UN needs to step in and resolve conflicts?  Yet we know that the UN can’t even wipe it’s nose without extensive and fruitless debate.  We have all seen the uselessness of the UN’s countless resolutions and sanctions against countries that threaten the world with violence and invade others for material gain.
  • 15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. I really hate to say this, but I believe that the Democratic Party is more Socialist/Communist than it is Democratic.  Look at the number of points above and compare them with the positions that the Democratic Party.  The similarities are frightening.
  • 17) Get control of the schools.  Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. When reading through my son’s American History books while he was in High School, I was shocked to see that many formative events in our nation’s history either missing or completely rewritten so as to subtly make it appear that this country was at fault for defending itself or its ideals.  Likewise for the curriculum that allows our children to be promoted from grade to grade and graduate, but cannot enter college without taking remedial reading and mathematics courses.  Of course, the Teacher’s Unions are rabidly against any standards that they would need to be held to, and those few that are in place they do their best to circumvent.  Finally, even though Russian history wasn’t a big part of my son’s World History classes, the textbooks either minimized or omitted the atrocities committed by Communist leaders such as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao.
  • 18) Gain control of all student newspapers.  20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.  21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. What is the best way to promote your point of view?  Control the media that provides information to the masses.  Without being taught to be critical, disinformation and propaganda become truth.
  • 22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”  23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” Some of the art that has been displayed and promoted as cutting edge and full of depth is really full of something else.  There is some ugly art out there, and the edginess either borders on or is obscene & lacking in any moral redemption.
  • 25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting p0rnography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.  26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” We have all seen the rise in the gay right movement for marriage equality, and the normalization of p0rnography as an art form.  If deviancy becomes the norm, then what does normal become?
  • 27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”  28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and our Constitution allows for the practice and observance of any religion without interference from the Government.  What the phrase “separation of Church and State” actually means that the State (Government) shall not promote any one religion over the other.  Prayer should be allowed in schools (who hasn’t uttered a prayer before a test?), but not mandated.  I do not believe in the innate goodness of man – I’ve seen too much cruelty from men that have no moral compass.
  • 29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.  30) Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” How many times has the Supreme Court looked outside of the Constitution for its judgements?  The most recent has been the case for Habeas Corpus for the terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.  The reason that the Courts and pundits gave was that the Constitution has not kept up with world events.  B.S.!!  What the Constitution and the Founding Fathers set up was a system of government that would ensure the sovereignty of the United States and freedom of it’s people.  And by the way, if the American Revolution failed, each and every one of the Founding Fathers would have been hung as traitors to the Crown.  How many of you would have put your life on the line for an idea?
  • 38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].  39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. Anyone who has seen newscasts of social services coming in and taking children away from their parents without due process of law (innocent until proven guilty) should know that this is exactly what this is about.  And I have heard enough psycho-babble from these pointy-headed people while dealing with my son’s issues to know that these people secretly crave power over others.
  • 40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.  41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. Considering that it can now be considered child abuse or assault & battery if you spank your children as a punishment is only the latest of dissolving the family unit.  Children now have the right in some states to “divorce” their parents, usually because their parents are “too hard” on them.  One look at the Hollywood kids problems with drugs, alcohol, sex, and other self-destructive actions should be enough to emphasize how children without guidance & a strong family will turn out.
  • 45) Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. Already, there is pressure from the UN and others for the US to submit to the judgment of the World Court in international matters.  Recently, when the State of Texas executed a Mexican citizen for a dual homicide, the World Court wanted to step in and halt the execution on the grounds of human rights.  If anything, these calls for submission to an international authority such as the UN or World Court for domestic issues would be a violation of the Sovereignty of the United States as a country.

How many of the above goals have been accomplished under the guise of progressiveness by our elected officials to Government over the past 45 years? More to the point, how many of the above are promoted by the current Liberal Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency as part of their political platform and beliefs?

From Armchair Views:

Liberal Agenda or Communist Agenda?

The word “Liberal” originally described honorable and principled men who held to a philosophy of government that advocated Constitutional Republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism is a type of government almost unknown to most of the world. America was originally a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic defined is characterized by a very small government with limits on its powers of taxation and whose other powers are strictly limited by rigorously enforced Constitutional edicts. The honorable old Liberals of the 19th century would certainly not recognize the “liberals” of today. Modern Liberals promote, advocate, and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all powerful central government.

Some thoughts about modern liberals:

  • At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. The Liberal attempts to use government to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. The Liberal imagines that freedom from moral consequence can be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.
  • Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like “social justice” and “The Brotherhood of Man” to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely good..
  • The fundamental power struggle of Liberals may be classified as the individual versus the collective. The Liberal supports the collective in every contest against the individual. Liberals hate Individualism because it demands moral responsibility. Liberals support collectivism because they hope to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.
  • The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal. The Liberal despises the United States because it is the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.
  • In the mind of a Liberal, all institutions and concerns schools, environment, courts, etc. – serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.
  • To a Liberal, abortion becomes necessary to guarantee sexual freedom and eliminate moral consequence.
  • Any religion or religious person who believes or teaches that there are moral consequences for sin, is the enemy of Liberalism and must be oppressed. Thus for the collectivist Liberal bent on imposing socialism upon a nation, Christianity is the number one enemy above all other enemies. Christianity must be eliminated..
  • Strong families are one of the greatest threats to the final goals of Liberalism. The total disintegration of the American family in recent decades among some ethnic communities has occurred as a direct result of the design and intention of Liberals.
  • Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore is despised by Liberals.
  • The Liberal despises national sovereignty. Why? Because the best protection of individual freedoms is found in small decentralized governments.
  • The Liberal promotes the growth of multi-national and international governments such as the European Union and the United Nations because these organizations advance the cause of socialism and seek to destroy the very individualism that is best protected by sovereign states.
  • The Liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought. Thus the Liberal constantly seeks total control over all forms of media.
  • “Multi-culturalism” is the liberal code word for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture.
  • Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas.
  • The Liberal seeks to criminalize any speech that promotes morality or individualism as “hate speech.” Thus we see Liberal Judges and Liberal Courts outlawing the Bible and gutting the free speech provisions of the first amendment of the constitution. Liberal Judges are now declaring that the Bible’s proscriptions against homosexuality are illegal “hate speech” and scripture is now in the process of being outlawed from any appearance in public discourse or the public square.
  • The Liberal’s only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of uneducated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.
  • When possible, Liberals oppress anyone who questions their beliefs.
  • Liberals despise all innocence – especially the innocence of a child. Thus Hollywood Liberals seek to steal the innocence of our children as early as possible and the public schools assist them in this goal.
  • Liberals seek to sexualize our children, eliminate age of consent laws and promote the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of sexual freedom.
  • The Liberal typically chooses a career in a field that produces nothing of value. A Liberal will look for employment in field such as public education, an employee of local, county, state or federal government, an “activist,” a lawyer, or a bureaucrat in a tax free foundation or an NGO devoted to advancing Liberal goals, etc.
  • Liberal do-good programs enrich Liberals and do little to actually help the poor.
  • Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promoting promiscuity among the masses is the primary mission of the Liberals who control the Hollywood, Television and print media monopoly. Why? Because Liberals know that the twin pillars that support conservatism are family values and faith in God. By promoting promiscuity Liberals know that they are simultaneously attacking both of the main support pillars of rugged individualism.
  • Liberals say that they despise marriage and family because they are “patriarchal institutions” that oppress women and children. But the real reason they despise marriage and family values is because these institutions oppose, disapprove and limit promiscuity thus undermining one of the principal supports for Liberalism.
  • Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and instill collectivist ideology into the minds and hearts of our children.
  • Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative “moral superiority.” Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people. Liberals are driven by the need to validate the unspoken assertion that “I care more than you do,” which is ironic in the extreme since none of the government programs liberals have designed can be shown to have an overall positive influence in our society.
  • Whenever a Liberal expresses concern “for the children,” invariably they are using and targeting children to expand their own power, promote promiscuity, advance collectivism and enlarge their personal income at the expense of the taxpayer.
  • Liberals are elitists who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population.
  • Liberals howl if a homosexual transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but they openly bash Christians.
  • Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer’s who rule the inner cities.
  • Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.
  • In the Liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

I humbly submit to you, the reader, the task of comparing the above lists with the history of the Democratic Party and the actions & words of it’s members and candidates.  Considering the position of Senators Obama and Biden on issues that have come before them and statements they have made, I am even more convinced they should not be elected to run this nation of ours.

Michael Yon’s Online Magazine

I do not often promote another site, especially a journalist. But this is an exception. Here are some excerpts from his site:

I was in the Army some years ago and maintained close contact with many friends who made a career of military service. Naturally, I had an interest in what was happening in Iraq–I had friends in harm’s way.

But what spurred me to drop what I was doing, get on a plane and fly halfway around the world, to a war zone, was a growing sense that what I was seeing reported on television, as well as in newspapers and magazines, was inconsistent with the reality my friends were describing. I wanted to see the truth, first hand, for myself.

I saw American and Coalition soldiers putting everything on the line to accomplish their mission.

So that Iraqi children can have the chance to grow up in freedom and fulfill their potential.

I saw resolve steel the jaw of a military leader.

I saw hope light the eyes of a young girl.

I saw a parent’s anguish

I saw a village elder’s wisdom

I saw a soldier’s compassion.

And what I saw changed how I thought about this war. The “truth” of this experience is too complex to capture in a body count or a thirty-second sound byte. It’s chaotic, dynamic and evolving. It’s unwieldy, wasteful and we have made mistakes. It’s a struggle of epic proportions that ultimately relies on the strength of a people about whom most Americans seem to know very little.

The longer I stayed, the better I understood things. And I began to realize that Americans need to see these things in order to understand what is happening here and come to a more informed judgment of whether this struggle is “worth” the cost, in money and lives. No one can make that determination without a balanced set of facts.

To me, one look in the face of any of the children tips the scales one way.

But I don’t do this work to espouse a point of view, or rally people to the right or left. Some people might find that statement disingenuous. I’ve been criticized for using terms like terrorist and enemy in my dispatches. Most critics are a safe distance from the battleground. Up close, its more than a matter of taking sides. There’s no value in using imprecise language in a futile attempt to appear objective. There is a difference between Coalition soldiers and Iraqi police officers and the terrorists and criminals they confront. Whether you call them insurgents or resistance fighters or terrorists, the people who wake up in the morning plotting how to drive explosives-laden cars into crowds of children have to be confronted.

Combat is just one form of confrontation. I chose another way. By getting close enough to the truth, for long enough to recognize when reality reveals it, I confront the distortions in how this struggle is portrayed. I do it because we need to see this clearly: what happens in and to Iraq is a defining moment for our nation, and the world. This enemy is smart and they are deadly, but they are also losing. Iraq can become a strong and free nation. But it will take the constant application of pressure over time to stem the flow of blood. If we back off too soon, they will rebound. If we cut our losses and run, they will follow us home. Peace can prevail here, if we can use our strength to maintain our progress.

I have just started reading his posts from Iraq, and have found in them a side that our main stream media’s “30-second sound bytes” just do not report. There is a human element in them – truth, sadness, happiness, and everything in between. Therefore, here is a link to Michael Yon’s Online Magazine below and in the sidebar.

Comments on Obama & McCain at Saddleback

Traveling to Germany and jet lag puts me behind on commenting on Obama & McCain at Saddleback with Pastor Rick Warren. But perhaps that was for the best. I got to read comments from several different sites and watch the videos (links below).

Watching the candidates answer the questions posed to them highlighted the differences between not only their views, but how they are personally.

One of the things that I looked for was the apparent comfort level of the candidates when answering questions. Obama seemed to be uncomfortable in answering questions, pausing & stuttering with “ums” & “ahs” and did not constantly have eye contact with Pastor Warren and the audience (noticed him constantly looking to his right and down when answering). He tried to appear thoughtful while answering questions and making comments. McCain seemed to be totally at ease, looking at Pastor Warren and the audience. He constantly engaged the audience with stories supporting his answers.

Another of the things that I look for is directness of answers to questions. To be honest, I thought that Obama danced around questions or watered his answers down to try and appeal to all members of the viewing audience. McCain was extremely direct with his answers and was letting the chips fall where they may (the best example is the question on abortion).

The answers that each candidate gave to each question I leave to your value system and comfort level.

All in all, I thought Obama came across as a candidate that was unsure of himself, weighing every answer to make sure that he gave the “right” answer. McCain, on the other hand, came across as a candidate that knows what he believes in and has a plan.

While looking at these videos, my opinion is that McCain is a better choice than Obama. This opinion is because of the above observations and thoughts as well as the answers that both candidates gave to Pastor Warren’s questions. And in the fall, I will not be voting against Obama, but I will instead be voting for McCain.