Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Barack Obama: Change To Be Wary Of

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me - 'He's young and inexperienced, and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'" - Senator Barack Obama, at recent fundraising event in Florida


I would like to correct a gross misconception about the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. Were he to win the White House, he would not become the first Black president of these States united by the Constitution. It is disingenuous to claim this is so. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama, aside from being an inexperienced, untested, mysterious (in a bad way) and charismatic "Illiberal (only-my-opinion-matters-not-yours) Liberal" with an outspoken, arguably unpatriotic wife, is mulatto....not "Black".

His having a black parent and a white parent of course does not un-qualify Monsieur Obama for the Oval Office. His politics do that, in my eyes. But, you already knew this. Allow me to go further.

Yes, I object to this portrayal of Barack Obama as being that which he isn't - Black, and an Agent of Change, and for good reason. For why would a self-proclaimed agent of change, whose politics are supposedly politics of a different sort (despite his voting record in the Senate saying something different about him) so arrogantly appropriate a symbol of the Presidency - in a remarkably fascistic way - while the election is decidedly undecided?

Months, in fact, before it is held?

Personality cult, much? Look at the Obama seal above. On it we see "Vero Possumus," a.k.a. "Si, se puede" or "Yes we can". His campaign slogan. I guess "E Pluribus Unum," is on its way out the door? Along with "In God We Trust," the United States' other motto?

Obama's campaign seal might as well say...well, not say, but scream... "Sieg Heil!" It's a wonder his most ardent supporters aren't doing so already, the zealots....

Think I'm exagerrating? He's appropriating the symbols of the State, attempting to get the people at large to associate them with himself. He's got plenty of willing "executioners" going along with him, blind supporters eager to make his the only accepted vision of the country's future.

Roman emperors did that sort of thing. Monarchs do that sort of thing. Dictators do that sort of thing. Hitler did that sort of thing. Obama and the Democrats are doing that sort of thing. Pardon me for being wary of such practices, for America's sake...for humanity's sake!


And despite any efforts to make this race be about something else other than race, Obamaniacs find it easier to portray the Illinois senator as 100% Black. Though they claimed a desire to not make race a part of this campaign, there is an almost unspoken-of tendency by his campaign to inject little racial jibes and provocations into the discouse every now and then, leading opponents like me to question whether they will be labeled - and vilified - as racists due to their justifiable criticisms of Barack Obama.

If I don't vote for Obama in November, and someone finds out about it, will I be labeled "racist"? The late William F. Buckley once said, "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to learn that there are other views." If I don't vote for Obama in November, will I be sent by Democrats to a re-education camp, for political undesirables?

Are Americans so ignorant of history that they are dooming themselves to repeat the history of other nations? I hope to God this is not so. I really hope not. Between you and me, Obamaniacs could give "Brownshirts" a whole new meaning...get what I'm saying?


Cold, hard facts aren't important to Senator Obama, or his supporters. Running a campaign based on conjecture, charisma and "good feelings", the substance of which is...a lack of substance, beyond the ambiguous...

Obamaniacs buy into his appropriation of "Hope" and "Change" just as blindly as Bush supporters eagerly bought into the 43rd President's appropriation of "Freedom" and "Patriot"-ism after 9/11. Whether they admit it or not, Barack Obama's proponents think the world of him, but don't think much about him. They think change relies on the election of Barack Obama, and not on their own deeds.

But we don't need Barack Obama to become a country true to its creed. We're not perfect, but we're working on it. That's been the way, our way - imperfect, yet constantly improving - since 1776. And the fact is, we already are a Nation which, for the most part, judges people based not on the color of their skin but instead on the content of their character. Bobby Jindhal, a Republican of Indian descent, is the Governor of Louisiana. New York State's governor is a legally-blind African-American.

We have come a long way, on our own, since Independence. Barack Obama, and his outspoken wife, - as well as his campaign - should recognize, honor and celebrate this. They don't. In fact, they act as if America has changed only because of them, and can (will) only change with them. That scares me, no small amount it does. Come this November, I hope to God we don't take a good many steps back after going so many forward.

Friday, June 06, 2008

More Reasons to Distrust Barack Obama

Every week, it seems, free-thinking, independently-minded Americans (a.k.a. "those of us not caught up in the hype and spin") such as myself get more material from Barack Obama and his campaign, material which we - in this glorious political-cultural societal system of ours - have every right to advertise to the rest of the world as examples of why Senator Barack Obama is not qualified to be the next President of The United States of America.

Case in point:


"Obama clarifies united J'lem comment"


Just as it became apparent that Barack Obama was going to be the official Democrat nominee for President, at an American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference he declared that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." A day or so later, an Obama adviser clarified the Senator's statement by saying, "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties."

The whole idea of Barack Obama saying one thing at a conference mostly attended by none-too-few members of that American demographic most likely to vote Democrat in the next election - Jews - and then his campaign saying another thing, later, which effectively changes the meaning of the prior declaration, smells fishy to me, and is enough to send chills down my spine.

For a candidate who is supposedly the standard-bearer of "change" in American politics, this unfortunate incident once again earns Obama a reputation as a shameless opportunist.


Nathan Diament, public policy director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, reacted this way: "If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."

And as Morton Klein of the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) has pointed out, "It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe."

Is this the kind of President self-proclaimed liberals want in the White House? When I think of all the times President George W. Bush has been labeled a liar, a war-monger, or several other less-than-complimentary terms, and then look at what Obama and his lackeys are feeding us, I'm inclined to fling many of those same insults right back at the Illinois Senator.

And for all the Left-led mockery of Bush which shamelessly portrays the man as a buffoon, I'm not seeing much of a difference between their caricatures of a sitting President and their presumptive presidential candidate's campaign.

When one takes into account these same peoples' expressed convictions that Bush is an evil genius (at the same time they deride him as an idiot), he might even begin to think the "organized mental confusion" embodied by the Obama camp is a deliberate ruse designed to make their candidate seem like an ordinary, flawed "everyman"...which, by the way, worked out pretty well for George Walker Bush.

In any case, I'm more than a little insulted by Barack Obama's opportunistic employment of obfuscation and revisionism in order to ingratiate himself with "American Israel". As if his disingenuous stance this week regarding Jerusalem - a city I in many ways consider myself an expatriate from - wasn't bad enough, last week he claimed an uncle helped liberate Auschwitz.


Why or how, exactly, I am supposed to be impressed that a great uncle of Barack Obama participated in the liberation of Buchenwald (not Auschwitz) I have no idea; perhaps it is the case that on the heels of numerous examples of "guilt by association" (Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Michael Pfleger, et al) plaguing their man, Obama's campaign was trying to inject some "virtue by association" to inoculate him against future outbreaks.

Be that as it may, Barack Hussein Obama is still in many ways an unknown, untested entity, and the more that is learned about him, the more reasons we commonsensical - maybe cynical, but absolutely attentive - members of the American electorate have to distrust him. But hey, skepticism is healthy when it comes to American politics. Our motto is "In God We Trust", not "In Politicians We Trust", after all.

The least so-called "liberals" (those I not-so-playfully call "Illiberals") could do is be straightforward with the rest of us in the U.S., if it is their goal to have "Obama the Disingenuous" succeed "Bush the Liar" in the Oval Office. But wait, be honest with us? They can't do that: Their candidate is the Great Obfuscator, remember?







"Obama's Revisionist History"
by Karl Rove

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Make a Choice: It is Obama, or MLK, Jr. ?

"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."

- John McCain in 1982, addressing a voter who accused him of being a carpetbagger


Since many people are justifying Senator Barack Hussein Obama's run for the Oval Office - and sometimes insinuating that the job of President of the United States is his (or should be his) by default - whilst quoting or alluding to the words of a certain, revered, celebrated civil rights leader who had a dream that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'", I believe that honoring the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. is exactly what we should be doing in this "historic" 2008 presidential race, now that an African-American has the majority of the Democrats' approval to be the Jackass Party's general election presidential nominee.

Thus, I believe it is the case that anyone who votes for Barack Hussein Obama - and I am, undoubtedly, specifically addressing African-Americans here, but "Caucasians" too - based on the Senator's skin color (with an attitude of "It's about time" or some nonsense like that) is effectively abandoning the memory of the late, great Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in favor of political expediency. After all, was it not during the celebrated "I Have a Dream" speech, given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, that MLK, Jr. shared his dream that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"?

How, I ask you, would voting for Barack Hussein Obama because he is African-American - regardless of considerations as to whether or not his policies would be good for America (which should be our concern) - be anything but a slap in the face to MLK, Jr.'s legacy, especially taking into consideration that above quote? Such an act would effectively, at the very least symbolically, negate all that Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for, worked for, prayed for and died for.

Is it right to hold a man - truly, a knight of liberty - in such high esteem and at the same time willfully act in total contradiction to the values he espoused, the hopes he shared, the dreams he dreamed? No.

I think it's demeaning. Irresponsible. Hypocritical.


Look, I am cognizant of the fact that a great number of Democrats out there, and some Republicans too, support Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois due to the man's ideological stance.

But I am also aware that in their zeal for change, many well-intentioned Americans see Barack Hussein Obama's skin color, much more than his positions, as being just the sort of change - culturally and politically - this (to quote the late, great Winston Churchill) "Great Republic" needs at this point in our history. They're willing to overlook the many factual errors in his speeches, his irresponsible approach to foreign policy and overall, his inexperience, because hey...look...you gotta understand...he's got charisma, and hey, he's an African-American who has a chance of becoming President!

Of The United States of America!

However, as a free-thinking, reasonable and common sense-guided voter, I'm not willing to overlook such "faults" simply because, as did Adolf Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama has style, charisma or personal magnetism. Just because an African-American is for the first time a major political party's choice for President of America doesn't mean he must win the election or else his candidacy won't mean anything. A lot of people will tell you that such is the case, but they're wrong.

While Obama's skin color is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, his ideological stance is not, especially at this point in our country's history when we have - both Democrats and Republicans, "conservatives" and "liberals" alike - largely abandoned the use of reason and allowed ourselves to be caressed and cajoled by leaders - both elected and self-appointed - who all too eagerly employ demagoguery in their efforts to shape America and Americans in their image.

His ideology leads Senator Obama to advocate positions and policies which would entrench and expand the welfare state rather than scale it down. When it comes to national security, I get the impression Barack Hussein Obama hasn't a clue what is really happening in Iraq (this, while one of John McCain's sons has served in the country, and while Senator McCain and - lest I forget - celebrated action star Chuck Norris have both visited Iraq many more times than Obama).

And tell me, why should I trust a guy who is, for all intents and purposes, an unknown entity? He's asking Americans to give him vast political power to make "change we can believe in" on the basis of promises presently made, not promises previously kept.

By the way, I also know Obama's supporters don't like it when critics emphasize the Hussein in Barack Hussein Obama; this I find funny, though, when few critics of George W. Bush don't have any problem with derisively calling him "Dubya" or labeling his gaffes "Bushisms" (hey, I admit, many are pretty darn funny). Why, though? It's his middle name. We can say it, emphasize it, if we want to. And, we're allowed to feel however we want about that middle name. Some people with the name Hussein are good (I count the late King Hussein of Jordan in that group), and others not so much (duh - Saddam!). What if we make the judgment based on that?

My feelings about Senator Barack Hussein Obama - hey, if you don't like me doing it too, just call me "Jeremy Sidney Slavin" from now on - have nothing to do with the man's skin color:

* Pardon me for not wanting in the White House a First Lady who was quoted as saying "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".

* Pardon me for not wanting as my employee - let's not forget, these candidates are interviewing us for the highest executive job in the Federal Government, as they aren't entitled to anything or any position - a man who knows as much about dealing with the real world as I do about physics.

* Pardon me for not wanting to see The United States of America effectively turned into The United States of Canada (not that I have anything against "America's Hat").


Whatever else is said about him, this much can be ascertained about his character: If Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate of principle, who had the interests of the electorate at heart, he would not seek to abandon the people of Illinois - who elected him to a federal office for a specific reason, to do a specific job - and would instead at least serve out his very first term as a U.S. Senator before his ambition - which he's certainly allowed to have - compelled him to seek higher office...

...For as my Dad has attempted to teach me over the years (he's been somewhat successful), you should keep the promises you make, and finish what you start. I don't see Senator Obama doing either. Does "trust" no longer matter in 2008? That Senator Barack Hussein Obama is so darn eager not to do the job he was initially entrusted with, and cares more about power than probity, should be obvious to anyone who not only has a brain, but uses it too (the same could be said of Hillary Clinton).

Yes, it's true that Senator John McCain, if he won the Presidency, would not serve out the remainder of the current term of the federal office that the good people of the State of Arizona re-elected him to in 2004. But then, Sen. McCain has already served not one but three full U.S. Senate terms since January 1987 (and two full terms in the House of Representatives as well - from January '83 to January '87), so I'm willing to give the man a pass on his fourth if he is successful in his bid for the White House.

But then, that's me.