By: Bradley V. Mahlstedt

June 29, 2009

In February of 2007 then President Bush authorized a 21,000 man troop surge in Iraq in an effort to quell violence and establish order in the new and struggling free state of Iraq. Before the surge was implemented long enough to judge its effects, the liberal media along with democrats in Washington opposed any idea of a surge in Iraq.

In February of 2007 Bill Maxwell of the St. Petersburg times wrote, "This is not supporting our troops. This is needlessly sending our troops to their deaths." Liberal politicians conclusively opposed the troop surge as well. Sen. Frank Lautenberg said he wouldn't support the troop-surge proposal because the Bush administration had shown no ability to properly manage the Iraq war and Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat, said: "What we need is a surge in diplomacy, not a surge in troops…we need political solutions, not a military escalation... . Any increase in troops is terribly misguided." But after little more than a month into the deployment of troops violence started to fade. Yet even with evidence pointing to success in Iraq liberals lambasted then President Bush for continuing on the course to victory and our current commander in chief was one of them. Even as late as 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama was unable to recognize the surge had worked and that the tide was turning towards victory and freedom. In a ''Nightline'' interview on ABC in July of last year Obama stated that if he had to do it all over again, knowing what he knew by July 2008, he would still not support the surge.

So here we are. A year has passed since that "Nightline" interview, candidate Barack Obama has now been President Obama for 6 months. Result: Victory. Just today American troops withdrew from the streets in Bagdad not in retreat from enemy fire but rather to the sound of fireworks and jubilant celebrations by the Iraqi people. Nothing has changed in strategy and yet victory is reaching its climax. Will former President Bush get the legacy title of "Freedom Provider"? Not likely. Will the democrats who failed to stand up for victory and freedom ever be chastised for being wrong? Not a chance. Will Barack Obama admit he was wrong and give credit to a resilient and dedicated former commander in chief? Unlikely; but history has been written, the truth will always show that Bush achieved victory in Iraq, millions are now free, and let us hope that President Obama is taking notes. Let us remember that although Obama has courtside seats with regards to victory…Bush was the captain of the team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

As we all know Iran recently allowed it’s citizens to participate in elections that ended up being a mere façade of legitimacy. President Obama first stated that he was “concerned” about the increasing violence that was unfolding and that America does not want to be seen as “meddling” in Iran’s affairs. Later, after failing to initially support the protesters who were being shot, beaten, jailed, and threatened, and after taking much criticism about his lack of response, the President, in a press conference, stated that he, “strongly condemns the unjust actions.” Obama also reminded the world that he “is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs.” Yet Iran’s violent response to freedom seeking voters subsequent to the President’s soft-line press conference on the matter has been to propose execution the Mousavi coalition leaders.  

Liberals such as Nancy Pelosi have long claimed to be champions of human rights. Yet very little criticism of the way in which President Obama reluctantly condemned the situation has emerged by liberal leaders such as Pelosi.

In 1999, when the Clinton administration sought to free up trade relations, then Rep. Nancy Pelosi stated that such a policy was “a failure” and that to normalize trade relations with China would be “very abnormal, in fact grotesque” due to China’s human rights record. Pelosi also later said, “The Clinton administration policy has been a failure in terms of promoting human rights.” As late as 2008 the Speaker suggested that former President Bush boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics due to human rights violations. The Mullahs in Iran are violating human rights and the whole world is watching. Yet Mrs. Speaker is quiet on the way in which Obama is handling these murderous rampaging oppressors.

When speaking on the Iran situation in 2008 former President Bush stated:

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It is natural," Bush said. "But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred."

Obama is not espousing Iran’s hatred and violence towards freedom seeking individuals. But he definitely is passively dismissing it as something not of American concern. And its unfortunate leaders that claim to have been champions of human rights in the past, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, refuse to call him on it. It is unfortunate that our legislators have been caught up in the celebrity that has taken the place of America’s Presidency…for freedom is paying the price.

 

A Classless Excuse of a Statesman: Barack Obama

By: Brad Mahlstedt

President: Whittier Republican Council

March 10, 2009

            What is going on with B. Hussein Obama? Is anyone reading the news? It seems as though we have a child in the White House who is totally incompetent with regards to how a statesman is supposed to behave. Obama has only been in office a little over a month and he seems more concerned with his reputation and how the media, pundits, and American politic think about him than he does about running and leading our country.

Last time I checked, but maybe I’m wrong, when a statesman from another country comes to the United States, we host perhaps a state dinner or have a formal meeting where the leaders meet in front of the press in an effort to show some sort of solidarity between the two nations. At a minimum each leader presents gifts to the other. These gifts are not gifts to the individual leaders, as Bill and Hillary later found out when they attempted to hijack some of them from the White House when they departed[1], but rather are gifts on behalf of the giving nation to the nation receiving the gift. What does our little wet behind the ears president do: He gives Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Briton, not a state dinner, but a set of DVD’s. Huh!?

Boy nothing says diplomatic respect like a Star Wars DVD. In fact, Downing Street was so embarrassed by this that they attempted to keep it away from the British press. But to be fair to Obama it wasn’t just a single DVD, or 2, or 3 for that matter; but a whole 25 of them. Apparently it never crossed Obama’s mind that Prime Minister Brown might have more important things to do besides watching 25 movies, such as running a country. All this while Brown, a real statesman, gave Obama uniquely historical gifts, inter alia, “a pen holder fashioned from the oak timber of HMS Gannet, a Navy vessel that served on anti-slavery missions off Africa”. [2]  

Also, typically the President grants a foreign dignitary the honor of standing side by side next to their respective flags for T.V. cameras. Did Obama do this? No. In fact Obama even canceled a joint press conference. Excuse: There was snow outside. “Apparently the 132 rooms in the White House were all occupied or too small to have a photo opp.” as one journalist guessed. To top it off, after Brown’s flight across the sea he didn’t even get invited to lunch.[3] Perhaps instead of reading Lincoln biographies before taking the sacred presidential oath Obama should have read up on American presidential custom.

            Another of example out of the entire plethora of classless examples involves Obama’s lack of respect for the oval office and all the leaders before him. As a sign of respect for the Oval Office and all that it stood for both Reagan and Bush never took off their jackets while working inside the office. What does Obama do? He throws away all the formality and respect for the Office and doesn’t wear his jacket.[4] Being the Messaih and all maybe he is just preparing America for the day he will waltz into the Oval Office in his robe and leather sandals. This devoid of class behavior started on his first day in office.

What about honesty? Barack H. Obama not only fooled voters into thinking he was honest during campaign ’08 but he now is doing an about face and adopting ideas of his former adversary; namely, John McCain. On September 15^th, 2008 Obama began to slam McCain for stating that the fundamentals of the American economy are strong. Instead of exuding class and stipulating that the fundamentals were indeed strong, Obama, seeing the political advantages of pouncing on his adversary, denounced McCain’s remarks as ‘out of touch’. However, on March 13^th, 2009 what does our weasel of a president do? He adopts McCains remarks in an attempt to be positive about our economic situation.[5] Mr. Obama: Were you lying then or now? Were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Was McCain right all along or are you also ‘out of touch’? How disgusting it is to see a president sway in the wind when it is politically expedient and advantageous. Classless it is to pounce on an American hero calling him “out of touch” only to adopt his stance once victory has been achieved.

The examples are endless. In fact, on Obama’s first press conference after the election (not to be confused with his first interview as president which was with Al-Arabiya TV), when responding to a question about whether he has spoken to any of the former presidents, Obama stated that he had. But rather than leave his response at this he couldn’t help but throw in a jab at our formerly beloved first lady, 88 year old Nancy Reagan. He stated that he has yet to get into any Nancy Reagan séances.[6] Making fun of the wife of one of our greatest American leaders? Who does he think he is? Why does he feel that it is appropriate to bash those who came before him? What happened to winning with class? Most of us learn this by the time we start T-ball. But regardless of whether Obama ever played T-ball, there is only one way to describe the way Obama abused his podium that day: Classless. 

The other day Obama gave an interview over the phone with the New York Times. The reporter asked whether his domestic policies suggested that he was a socialist as some conservatives have implied. Obama stated that he was not a socialist. The interview concluded a few minutes later. Our classless excuse of a president then called back complaining that such a question had even been asked.[7] Mr. Obama: Perhaps you need to expand your government even further to include a czar that tells you it is unprofessional for the President of the United States to call and complain about the questions asked after an interview or even during the interview for that matter. You are the President! Quit your wining and be professional! Once again he exudes no class. Even if one thinks it is too harsh to call Obama classless, one can hardly argue that this is behavior befitting of the most powerful man in the world; namely the President of the United States.

How can one respect a man who behaves so childishly in the most powerful office one can hold? I sure hope Obama wises up and realizes that such behavior not only is embarrassing to the office but also an entire nation of citizens as well. If he isn’t careful and doesn’t wise up soon, he will quickly lose the respect of countless mindless drones of uneducated voters…his largest voting base.

Works Cited

Ellis, B. (2008, November 7). Bryan Ellis on Politics. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from www.politics.bryanellis.com: http://politics.bryanellis.com/49/classless-barack-obama-slams-nancy-reagan-seances/

Fox News. (2009, March 16). Retrieved March 19, 2009, from www.foxnews.com: www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/16/obama-team-adopts-mccains-optimism-economy/

Fox News. (2009, March 6). www.foxnews.com. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from FoxNews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/06/obamas-blockbuster-gift-brown-dvds/

Kelly, J. (2009, March 10). Obama Stifs the Brits. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/obama_stiffs_the_brits.html

LELAND, M. B. (2001, February 8). Clintons Return Household Gifts of Uncertain Ownership . The New York Times , p. Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 28.

Lewis, M. (2009, January 21). www.news.aol.com. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from AOL: www.news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/21/obama-breaks-reagan-bush-jacket-in-the-oval-office-rule/

Zeleny, J. (2009, March 8). A socialis? Obama calls back to insist no. International herald Tribune .

 

Do You Know What “Change” Means?

By: Bradley Mahlstedt 2L 

President: Whittier Republican Council

February 6, 2009

After the coronation of Barack Obama this past January I got to thinking about what he really meant by “Change”. It seemed that through the torturous, and seemingly endless, primary and post primary campaigns all we heard about was “Change”. But the American politic never really got an explanation of what “Change” means.

In the general election this past November, 95% of blacks voted for Barack Obama.[1] One can’t get a single group/class/race etc. to agree that the sun will come up tomorrow let alone agree on one political candidate. One has to wonder if Barack Obama’s fifty percent African-American blood had anything to do with their vote. Is this the kind of change we were looking for? I thought it was racist to only consider race when making decisions. Is this what Obama meant by “Change”…the mere race of my president?

Barrack Obama has also claimed that every person in America has a right to have health insurance through universal healthcare[2] (more like universal welfare). This sure would be change. But does putting the alcoholic bum on the side of the street, who drank his liver away, who has never held a job due to his “disease” of alcoholism, ahead of a Detroit auto worker for a liver transplant, constitute the kind of “Change” he strives to implement? I sure hope not.

Perhaps a new way of dealing with foreign policy was the type of “Change” Obama was talking about. Problem solved. The new United States policy for enemy combatants and those that kill our teenage and young adult soldiers is to close the prison they are kept in without even having a plan of what to do with them next[3]. Great job Obama! What a wonderful idea. We can always put them in Leavenworth Kansas. Besides the fact that I don’t think it’s a relatively good idea to put hardened terrorists in a general population of inmates that already are prone to violence, I can’t help but wonder why the liberal Pelosis of the psycho-left-wing don’t just put them in Alcatraz. Perhaps it’s because Alcatraz is in Pelosi’s district. Sending these hardened terrorists to American prisons would be like sending Charles Manson to a shelter for battered. Essentially it would be terrorist try-outs and recruitment worse than the U.S. Army on high school campuses (which liberals hate by the way). So why are the liberal Obamamaniacs supporting this? Obama = “Change” remember? 

What about bills devoid of pork? As I write this in early February, President Obama is attempting to pass a $900 billion bailout bill[4], which the majority of America is against[5] (so much for listening to the people). Although it technically has no pork barrel spending, it has the same kind of spending written directly within the wording of the bill. Isn’t poop in a pot the same as poop in a barrel?

For instance this “economic stimulus” bill originally included $400 million dollars for global warming research[6] (that should put Detroit back to work), $650 million for T.V. coupons[7] (Duh! That’s so those with a job can relax after work.), $335 million towards sex-education[8] (again creating endless job opportunities for middle class Americans because they obviously don’t know anything about sex), and various other dumb, liberal, big spending, pet-projects that have nothing to do with job creation or stimulating the economy. Even some Democrats were unable to vote for it the first time around[9].

All we hear about is how we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Says who? I don’t see any bread lines or 25% unemployment like the Great Depression.[10] In fact, currently the State of California has the worst unemployment in the nation at 9-10%.[11] This is bad but I still don’t see any bread lines, but only long lines at the movie theatres to see Gran Torino.  This doesn’t sound like a Great Depression to me.

Also, what is with comparing him (Obama) to FDR in that he will get us out of the bad economy like FDR got us out of the Great Depression? Shhh! Secret time: By the end of 1939 FDR had spent more money than the entire nation spent between 1776 and 1930. Also unemployment was higher in 1939 than it was when Herbert Hoover left office.[12] Essentially the point is that after all the government programs (liberal spending and government meddling), FDR doubled our national debt in only 10 years and left our nation in worse financial shape than it was when he got into office.

To illustrate how spending has gotten out of control and how we should not implement FDR big-spending policy in our current economic situation, like Obama wants, Dr. Burt Folsom points out that if, in 1492, when Christopher Columbus discovered America, Columbus put $100 in a bank account every minute until 1930, by 1930 there would not be enough money in that account to pay for the massive spending of the 1930’s decade alone. [13] And so the FDR like spending begins and Barack Obama is Jesus walking on water…at least until our nation’s citizens realize that his government programs and massive spending will not only cripple today’s society, but also our children’s future, although by then it will likely be too late. Is this the kind of FDR-like help we want from Barack Obama? Is this the kind of “Change from the past 8 years” America expects? I would gamble that it is not.

Perhaps reform in ethics is what Obama meant by “Change”. Although Bush never had sexual relations in the Oval office, never committed perjury, was never disbarred[14] (to be fair he isn’t even a lawyer), never drove a girl off of a bridge and let her drown while he went to sleep in a hotel room[15], never was impeached, never cheated on is wife with Marylin Monroe[16], and never declared a war lost while we were still fighting it[17], like some in the Democratic party Obama belongs to, Bush nevertheless clearly lacked ethics. Didn’t he? Obama will change this and has clearly showed his willingness to do so. After all he associated with a known domestic terrorist (Ayers), he attended a racist church (Wright), appointed two individuals in his cabinet that just forgot and mistakenly didn’t pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes[18] (doesn’t everyone?), he appointed an individual to Chief of Staff that literally sends dead fish to his political adversaries[19], he appointed an Attorney General who pardons terrorists[20], not to mention “Shrillary” Clinton as Secretary of State which should be a capital offense (calm down I’m not totally serious about Clinton…only half way), and yet he promises to change the ethics in Washington. Boy THANK YOU GOD (I sure hope I don’t get in trouble for mentioning God) for finally giving us someone who really knows what ethics are all about. Perhaps this doesn’t show that Obama lacks personal ethics, but one thing it most definitely calls into question is his ability to decipher between ethical and unethical behavior. If our president can’t even do this, what makes any sane-minded person believe he has the ability to reform the way Washington works?

“Change” doesn’t mean taking the same old Washington politicians and diverting them to new, more powerful offices on the Hill.

“Change” doesn’t mean solidifying the snake politician reputation.

“Change” doesn’t mean rewarding bad behavior.

 “Change” doesn’t mean implementing failed and irresponsible spending policy.

 

Issue: What the hell does “Change” mean?

Rule: Next time demand an answer.

Analysis: See above.

Conclusion: KEEP THE CHANGE OBAMA!

Works Cited

Beckmann, F. (2009, January 23). Closing Guantanamo causes terror problems for America. The Detroit News (Michigan) , p. pg. 9A.

Broder, D. S. (2007, April 26). The Democrats' Gonzales. The Washington Post , p. A29.

Cullen, J. (1987, August 05). Death Row Still Rages. Nationwide News Pty Limited Telegraph .

Eggen, D. (2008, November 6). Bush Applauds 'A Triumph of the American Story'. The Washington Post , p. A39.

Elliot, G. (2009, February 06). Democrats bow to tax-relief demand. The Australian , p. WORLD; Pg. 09.

Gilbert, K. (2009, January 28). "Stimulus" Bill Still Includes $335 Million Handout for Condoms, Sex-Ed Programs. Retrieved February 04, 2009, from www.LifeSiteNews.com: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012811.html

Haberman, M. (2009, February 04). Woe is O on Worst Day Yet- 'I Screwed Up,' As Top Picks Quit. The New York Post , p. pg. 5.

Harnden, T. (2009, February 09). Obama goes to teh people on stimulus deal. The Daily Telegraph (London) , p. pg. 13.

Jr., B. F. (2008). New Deal or Raw Deal. In J. Burton Folsom, New Deal or Raw Deal (pp. 2,4). New York: Threshold Editions.

Lucas, F. (2009, January 16). Holder Defends Terrorists' Clemency, Calls Rich Pardon a 'Mistake'. Retrieved February 03, 2009, from CNSNews: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42019

McFeatters, A. (2000, May 23). Disbar Clinton, Panel Urges; Arkansas Disciplinary Committee Says He Lied in Sworn Paula Jones Deposition. Pittsburg Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania) , pp. NATIONAL, Pg. A-1.

Pickert, M. S. (2009, November 06). Rahm Emanuel. Retrieved February 01, 2009, from www.time.com: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1856965,00.html

Pickler, N. (2007, January 25). Obama calls for universal health care. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from www.usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-25-obama-health_x.htm

Rasmussen, S. (2009, January 29). Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from www.rasmussenreports.com: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to_42

Schram, M. (1979, November 13). Chappaquiddick: Millstone of Uncertain Weight. The Washington Post , p. A1.

Unknown. (2009, February 1). Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/unempl71.html

Wolf, J. T. (2009, January 29). Stimulus Bill Moves to Senate for Changes. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from www.abcnews.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/Story?id=6757733&page=1

Young, S. (2009, January 23). California unemployment rate jumps to 9.3 percent. Retrieved February 09, 2009, from http://sfgate.com: http://sfgate.com/cgo-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/23/state/n091441S42.DTL

 

This campaign has been one obsessed with change. Obama practically starts every sentence with the word and the liberal left, especially the Obama campaign, criticizes anyone who questions his governmental proposals and political stances of being an advocate of the established Washington ‘good ol’ boys’ rather an agent of change. All this rhetoric while nominating an individual that represents anything but change.

Most people agree on both sides of the aisle that Washington needs to change. This is no new idea. The real question should be: What kind of change and at what cost? Certainly no sane minded person would advocate change for the sake of change. If this were true the implications could potentially be devastating. But somehow we have become blinded that this is exactly what Obama is advocating.

Obama claims to be an agent of change but when one examines Obama he really should be considered the same old liberal politician. Only this time the liberalness and politically failed ideologies are wrapped in a different package; namely a well spoken, young, black politician.

Change? The only real change is that the Democratic Party deviated from the typical old white male candidate. Surely one wouldn’t argue that because Ben and Jerry’s changes their ice cream carton that what is inside is any different than before. This tactic has been tried many times to fool consumers, sometimes successfully, into buying the same old garbage. This is exactly what is being attempted by the Democratic Party. Their nominee possesses the same garbage the party has been trying to force feed America for years only this time a different package is being peddled in an effort to fool voters. So let’s think for a moment. What kind of change does Obama really represent?

Certainly Obama claims to be bipartisan; yet when has he ever reached across party lines? (Umm Never!) In fact, in the short time he has been in the senate Obama has quickly been recognized as the most partisan and left leaning senators. This could be argued as a change since I don’t think anyone has either been considered the most conservative or most the liberal person in congress after a measly 2 years in office so maybe he should get at least some brownie points. Additionally, Obama hasn’t once introduced a single bill in the senate. So how can one call him a bipartisan legislator when he doesn’t even legislate? The simple answer is you can’t. Obama’s tactic has been to sit on the sidelines and pounce on the politicians that actually try to achieve bipartisanship.

Look at Obama’s state legislative record. That proves he is an agent of change. Does it not? Actually this serves to prove the point that he is more of the same. Every time a bill came up in the state legislator that was even somewhat controversial, rather than voting for it or against it, Obama, hundreds of times, voted ‘present’. What does this tell you about a politician? I’m sure the citizens of Illinois are glad to see that although Obama refused to take part in important state legislation he was at least there or ‘present’. Voting ‘present’ on hot button issues merely says that, although this is a hot button issue that needs to be resolved, I’m going to preserve my own skin at the cost of the constituents so that when it comes re-election time I can take any stance I want ensuring success over my adversary. This is exactly the tactic he is pulling against McCain. Remember the “I’ve been against the war from the beginning.” line? How do we know? He was in the state legislature in 2001 and last time I checked the senate of Illinois doesn’t vote on American foreign policy. The fact is we don’t know how he stood. Obama simply doesn’t have a record on Iraq and somehow he distorts this into a consistent stance in an effort to fool voters. This doesn’t seem to prove he is different from any stereotypically politician to me. But, perhaps I’m wrong.

The fact is Obama advocates, higher taxes, large government, socialized healthcare, government control over the free market, and that government should be the end all be all of American society.

The fact is that all these theories are not only antiquated but they have been implemented and have failed miserably. Jimmy Carter in the 1970’s raised taxes to almost epic proportions yet I fail to see anyone claim that during his time as president our economy was ideal. In fact Ronald Reagan came along and signed the largest tax cut in American history and almost overnight our economy flourished and maintained prosperous and significant growth.

Socialized health care? This is hardly a new idea. It has been advocated for years (in fact Hillary Clinton started this wave in America) and implemented in various countries only to fail. In Washington State for instance Canadians are coming to America to have their babies because their country lacks the facilities to accommodate expecting mothers. There are waitlists in Australia and Great Briton for operations that could be done over night in our current free medicine market. Liberals, like Obama often evoke the 30 million Americans without health insurance to justify such a transition from our current system. However we need to be careful when hearing these statistics. America this past year reached a population of 300 million citizens. Basic math brings one to the conclusion that this means 90% of our current population has health insurance. It doesn’t seem compelling to argue that this justifies a complete topple of the current system. Perhaps changes can be made but socialization on a massive scale seems obtuse. Our government can’t manage Social Security or the DMV. What makes you think they can manage the ever changing and complex healthcare system?  Is this the kind of change America desires and deserves? Change for the sake of change is not the answer.

The fact is that Obama is more of the same with inexperience to boot. McCain rather, is, and has been for his entire career, an individual that transcends political boundaries. His judgment and character attest to the fact that he is willing to reach out across the aisle to achieve a common goal for the American people, not just his party. This is why he has been having a rough time with his base, he answers to the American people not just his party. McCain answers to nobody and has verbalized this. He puts his country, not party, first. McCain actually has a legislative record. He has reached across lines to push through the McCain-Feingold legislation on campaign finance reform (something Obama refused to abide by when it was politically beneficial) and McCain-Kennedy.

The fact is that in John McCain you get a person character and honor. Too often this is not exuded in our politicians and is the type of change America wishes to see in their leader. Merely electing McCain will change what is expected in a commander in chief.

 In John McCain you will find an American that is willing to put his country first and has not only preached this but lived it. McCain voluntarily served his country and went to fight in an unpopular war, he put his fellow soldiers first and chose to have his teeth pried out with pliers, his arms broken, and his body beaten, rather than be a piece of propaganda for the communists. What a change it would be to have a proven patriot in the White House. This is the type of honor we need in a president rather than a fair weather politician whose only goal is self advancement as we notice when examining Obama and his record.

How about a president that knows the perils of war first hand? How about a president that can truly empathize with the soldiers’ experiences? How about a president that holds America higher than his party and actually lives and exudes the ideas he speaks? How about a candidate that has actually sought change, worked for change, and has achieved change?

McCain as president - Now that’s change we can believe in. Obama should observe, retreat back to Chicago, with pen and pad in hand, and take notes…

B.V.M.

- Senator Obama: A Danger to American Sovereignty?-

There seems to be this sick infatuation with Obama to the point that people were actually crying, yes crying, while Obama gave his acceptance speech at the DNC convention this past week. Reporters, the same people that are supposed to do 'honest reporting' were cheering on Obama, literally reverting back to their 12 year old infantile ways of astoundment and awe struck faces; much like a child does the first time they see Mickey mouse.

Wake up America! For once it's time for someone to tell generation give-me, generation entitlement, or generation now (whatever you want to call it), that words don’t mean anything. Actions are the testament of true character. And yes, telling the American politic that government is not the answer to everything constitutes honesty and character on the part of the politician. In fact there are some things (actually most things) that the government should keep their grubby little hands off. Obama seems to either subscribe to socialism or is unwilling to tell people what they really need to hear...the truth. I sure hope it’s the latter but fear the former.

If for a second you stop and look rationally at the Obama speech he, in a sense, advocates full socialism in America. Too harsh? Don’t believe it? Look for yourself at his speech. Obama wants to socialize health care. But rather than invoke the socialist word that is unpoetic and might dissuade voters from electing him he deceivingly calls it "universal" health care.

Still not convinced? Look at taxes. Obama apparently believes that the government is more fit to spend your money than you are. We hear how Obama will only raise the taxes of households making over 250,000 dollars a year but think about the implications this will most assuredly have. Anyone that owns a business will cease to hire employees creating a need for even more governmental programs to support the ever growing jobless sector necessitated by Obama's policy (This doesnt even go into teh fact that America has some of the highest corporate tax rates in teh world yet we wonder bhy companies are moving over seas with the jobs they provide. Its all Bush's fault...Duh). He also seems unable to grasp the fact that money best contributes to society and the economy when it is actually in the market and not Big Government’s piggy bank. After all big government fixes everything, and knows better than you how to spend your money; at least according to Obama's proposals. Wouldn’t another bridge to nowhere be wonderful?

Obama also advocates governmental restrictions on where the market can get its energy. He opposes new drilling in ANWR. Even though Alaskans advocate for drilling, Obama would rather dictate the policy of energy to the "free" market. Obama knows better than Alaska on this issue. Trust him. In fact America has more oil than the undercover terrorist state of Saudi Arabia yet Obama wishes to impede capitalism in an effort to tell we the people what is best for us. Just inflate your tires properly and the fuel issue will subside. Leave the rest to Obama.

Obama wants to bail out all the people that borrowed more than they could afford while purchasing a house. Apparently personal responsibility isn’t a main concern in his campaign. Don’t worry. You won’t have to do a thing. The government will be responsible for you.

Education? Don’t worry. Uncle Sam will swipe away the realized American dream from the "rich" so that you will never have to sacrifice in order to realize your own American dream. And old Uncle will be glad to pay your way to the top whether you deserve it or not. Just beware: Once you get that dream Obama will be sure to take away all you "worked" for because you now have become the evil rich that is anti-American and represents the evil part of American society the liberals dispise.

So will someone please explain where the liberty of America will be found once Obama gets his way and the government controls healthcare, where your money goes, restricts free trade, and controls education? Is this not socialism? If not, what is? What more is there for the government to get their hands on once all these policies are implemented that could make America more socialist?

I have to give Obama one thing, he can speak. But, so could Hitler. Its not that I believe he will start executing masses of people (aside from a few conservatives if he could). Such an assertion would be foolish. America can take and should take one lesson though, which is, actions speak louder than words. And also that we should never set aside our judgment and rational thought for an emotion evoking orator.

When the constitutional convention adjourned, and as Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall for the last time, a woman queried Mr. Franklin as to what kind of government he had given them. Franklin replied, "A republic...If you can keep it.” If Obama is elected it is just one fatal leap that would bring into fruition Franklin's implied fear. Either the citizens of this newly created free society would someday be too lazy or unable to keep and maintain the righteousness of liberty.

Let’s hope America has better sense than this and that between now and November America wakes up and votes with their head. America can’t afford the type of change Obama promises to bring, and will most likely deliver, if elected.


-B.V.M-