To Obama, and the Future Glory of His Changed America!

I think it's obvious, isn't it? Barack Obama is the New Savior not only of America, but all Mankind. Even for those who don't believe in God, he is the Messiah, resurrected. His record stands on its own: Not quite four years into his freshman Senate term, he already has a personality cult whose growth, tenacity and spirit rivals the cults which once surrounded Stalin and Hitler. Obama has, as we know, overcome great odds to defeat a favored Democrat rival and become his Party's official nominee for the job of President of the United States of America. And his rise to power, coming as the George W. Bush era comes to a close, is as providential a sign as there can be that Obama's meant to be President, or to even prepare the ground for a "President for Life"...a position to be occupied only by Democrats for the duration of the American Republic.

Change!

And who are Democrats, to deny that such is their goal - permanent power? Permanent power, devoid of dissent, or at least as devoid of dissent as is possible in the United States at this time? Such permanent power is - can it be disputed? - the best, most assured way of putting one's political plans into action. The Nazis and Soviets, the late Saddam Hussein regime and the current Islamic Republic of Iran, the House of Sa'ud in Arabia and Putin in Russia all demonstrate this truth clearly. For his part, Senator Obama has already shrewdly given his tacit blessing to his supporters to silence the opinions of those who oppose his/their views, and since he changes those views so often, he makes it very difficult for people to oppose him in the first place. This is hardly worrying; be encouraged! One-Party Rule depends on such leaders!

Change!

Obama has already showed us what the New Seal of the President of the United States will look like. He has already rallied millions upon millions of naive, young college students, mostly freshmen just like him (but of a different sort), and a few older students, who know only what their parents have taught them, what their professors have taught them, or what the mainstream media has taught them. Get 'em while they're young, as the saying goes, while they still have yet to really learn how to think independently. This is something to celebrate, the easy indoctrination of the leftist, liberal mantra (Republicans are bad, conservatives bad, Americans are bad, Democrats good, liberals good, power good, the Party is more important than the individual, the Government is more important than the individual, etc.) of willing acolytes.

Change!

Just imagine everything which will be possible once Democrats have retaken the White House and further entrenched their majority in Congress, securing their indefinitely extended power: We'll have a socialist-style universal medical system, just like in Cuba. And just like in Cuba, dissent against the Government will slowly but surely be quashed in the New Revolution (bye, conservative talk radio!), and only the elite in the Party or foreigners with money - who'll become, as they are now in Cuba, a different kind of elite - will be able to take advantage of all the medical advances (shorter wait times, for example) in our Great Republic. Can't you just see it? It will be a glorious time in America, a New Golden Age. I wonder who "our" Che Guevara will be. I really do. Will he murder as many people as the real one did? For the New Revolution?

Change!

The planet Earth, of course, will also be saved alongside America after Obama wins the Presidency and Democrats begin what will hopefully be a permanent period of residency in the White House. Because only Democrats, or rather, liberals, are capable of and willing to fight Global Warming to the bitter end. Yes, only left-wing liberals are willing to take on both humanity and Mother Nature herself. They'll not be content with simply ending humanity's contribution to Climate Change...they'll also take measures to ensure that the natural processes of the Earth - which led to past Climate Change and ended the last Ice Age (and which enabled humanity, civilization, to grow to such numbers and advancement as it has) - adhere to left-wing, Democratic liberalism's theoretical physical laws, not today's proven laws of Physics.

Change!

Barack Obama's inauguration will be a cause for further celebration abroad, beyond that which will follow Climate Change's inevitable, permanent defeat once the Earth stops rotating on its axis. Europeans, especially, will have reason to feel comfortable in the event the Democrats win the presidential election of 2008 and every such election thereafter, since Europeans, we cannot forget, know a thing or two about the potential power of a Government which intends to rule over the People rather than serve them. We have so much to learn from Europeans, for they are receptive to such systems of Government, and Europeans are obviously so much wiser and more worldly than Americans are. How could they not be, when they've learned so much from their fratricidal conflicts, and they've taught us how to industrialize mass genocide?

Change!

Yes, the world will Change for the better when the Democrats have power once more. Especially in the Middle East. Israel will be forced to partition Jerusalem, a la Berlin, with the Arabs despite there having been a Jewish majority in the modern city for over 140 years, and despite repeated Palestinian demonstrations of hatred, disrespect and irresponsibility toward Jews and their beliefs (demonstrated especially well during the period of Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem, when Jews, Christians and Muslims from Israel were prevented from worshiping at their Holy Sites). Governments the world over will flock to Jerusalem to establish and open their embassies to Palestine, while most embassies to Israel will likely remain in Tel Aviv, despite the mantra of those who say that Jerusalem will be a capital of two states, not one. Ah, a just peace!

Change!

Back in the U.S. Homeland, there will no longer be such a thing as illegal immigration. Not because our sovereign borders will have been secured by the Federal Government, but because said sovereign borders will have been opened in accordance with the demands of sovereign Mexico. We musn't forget, it is far easier for the Mexican Government to sanction illegal immigration, to print official fliers explaining how to sneak into America, than it is for them to work to grow their indigenous economy. But once full amnesty has been granted to all previous "illegal" immigrants, and the borders are forcibly opened - to the everlasting chagrin of the formerly semi-autonomous States - the Mexican Government will be able to spend its money on other things, like a campaign to make Spanish the official language of the U.S. Viva la reconquista!

Change!

As for African-Americans, an Obama victory would mean that finally, all their hopes and dreams have been (or can be) realized. It will signal the end of all the trials and tribulations afflicting "Blacks". An Obama victory in November '08 would be the ultimate vindication of the Civil Rights struggle, and all who fought for an America that lives up to its founding creed would have cause for immense pride. For how else might African-Americans have helped to realize Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, of an America whose citizens are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, than by voting en masse for a candidate based primarily on his...skin color? It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Doesn't it?

Change!

As Election Day nears, this much is certain:

Change, either domestically or internationally, is only possible with an Obama victory in the presidential race and a further Democratic victory in Congress and throughout the States of the American Union. Even though a change in the administration of Executive power is mandated by the Constitution and its amendments (meaning that no matter who wins in 2008, we'll have a new president in 2009), True Change, the kind that will restore dignity and honor to America, can only be implemented once ultra-liberal Democrats control our Government. Change, after all, never even existed before the advent of Barack Hussein Obama. Before Obama, there was just change. Regular, old, lawful "change". That will change, though, once Obama wins and Change comes to America. Can we so Change America...not just change it? Yes we can!

To facetious fascism!

God, Government and Us

"God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners." - William Wilberforce

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Ben Franklin

Reading an article in The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, in which it was reported that Senator John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had before a church group called the Iraq war 'a task that is from God', I immediately began to wonder how this would be used by Democrats to tarnish the Republican candidates' reputation (just as similar thoughts expressed by President Bush have been used to ridicule him). The thought dismayed me, because I am a man who cares deeply about his country and its history, well aware of how alien such criticism would have sounded to those who established the United States of America. If anything, in late 18th century/early 19th century America, to be accused of being an atheist was as bad as being accused of overt political ambition.

Today, sadly, the opposite is true.

Most of those who today criticize the use of God or the inclusion of the Almighty in a political context - say, in describing a certain national task as God-given - don't believe in God to begin with, or profess not to. They are of those who think it's chic to be an atheist, who claim a disdain for "the God delusion". They are not simply expressing doubt that God is on our side; they are expressing doubt over God's existence, period. They don't believe that God has granted us our liberty (effectively negating the value of the Declaration of Independence...you know, the whole "endowed by their Creator" bit) or helps us defend it. And yet, they'll sympathize with the aims of those who claim God is on their side - in, for example, their expressing support for Hizballah or Hamas rather than Israel - when the goal is the destruction of liberty.

Odd.

It's good to be a skeptic, at times. During the Roman siege of Jerusalem, nearly 2,000 years ago, the Holy City's zealous defenders believed fanatically that God was on their side. Josephus, a Jewish soldier captured by the Romans who later changed sides and wrote an account of the Jewish War (Great Revolt), is said to have appealed to the spiritual sentiments of the Zealots of Jerusalem by attempting to convince the Jews that at that particular juncture of history, God was clearly siding with Rome. In vain did Josephus undertake this appeal, which he had only done at the request of the general (later Caesar) Titus in order that the City and its Temple might be spared the ravages of warfare and famine.

Jerusalem, and its Temple, were later destroyed as the Roman legions overwhelmed Zion's defenders, force having been seen by Titus as his only choice.

But then again, it's also important for Americans to remember that at the time of their country's founding, those who were daily risking their lives in publicly standing up to the might of the British Crown believed that God Almighty was supportive of their task. Of course, I am not just speaking of the Declaration of Independence's recognition of self-evident truths, such as "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm also calling attention to the Founding Generation's belief that they were assuming "among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."

And I feel that I need to point out that the signers of the Declaration of Independence, in support of that Declaration, mutually pledged to each other their "Lives", their "Fortunes" and their "sacred Honor", and did so "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence".

Do modern, self-proclaimed "liberals" or "progressives" really feel themselves so much wiser than the Founders of our Republic, when they express doubt over the existence of God or attempt to make ordinary Americans feel shameful about believing that God is on our side in any particular task or struggle? (There aren't, to my knowledge, many atheist conservatives out there). Is it really so abhorrent to us, to read or see our politicians profess their faith in the Almighty? Are we supposed to be offended by a politician's opinion that God exists and that He (or She - your opinion) cares about what we do? Pardon me, but I was under the impression that in America, one's religious convictions do not qualify or disqualify him or her for/from political office.

There are actually laws that spell this out, aren't there?

Why yes, there are!

Now, I do not support merely paying lip-service to God, as in someone saying "God told me to do this" when whatever "this" is, is whatever they're doing this week. Nor can I take kooks, who murder innocent people and say "God told me to kill them!", at face value. And I am not one who will publicly proclaim that I believe God means for us to undertake such and such a task, unless I absolutely, truly believe that God would entrust such a task to us instead of another people. I reserve the right to agree or disagree with another's opinion on the matter, for, after all, I am entitled to my own opinion just as much as he (or she) is.

But as far as the concept goes, the notion that God might work His will through us at one time or another, well...I must admit, I believe it's not only possible, but probable, that this happens from time to time. I have faith that this is so. I'm not ashamed of this faith. It gives me hope. This faith instills in me more hope, and confidence, in the future than any politician ever could. I trust God to get things right, far more than I trust any particular Government or Bureaucracy to get things right.

Some people, I guess, are just plain afraid to believe in God, though. They're afraid to cede even partial responsibility for the events of their lives to Someone or Something else, even if the way they're living their lives shows they've already ceded that responsibility in decidedly irresponsible, dangerous, and unhealthy ways. Such people don't want to entrust their destiny to God's care or direction; they are unable to reconcile themselves to a reality in which their destiny is always so entrusted, whether they like it or not.

"I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor." - James Monroe

"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God." - George Washington

Time to Choose Wisely

Now that the American people know who their two main presidential candidates' running mates are, the choice for these United States of America is clear: Will it be the Barack Obama/Joe Biden Axis, or the John McCain/Sarah Palin Alliance?

Senators Obama and Biden are known for being their Party's men; they speak of change, but care more about their ideology's interests than their Nation's. Anyone who glances at Obama's time in office, who buys into the BS that he'll bring America together, will be disappointed by one of the most left-wing, partisan Senatorial records...on record. And Barack Obama's not even finished his first term! However, looking at the record of the GOP candidates, Arizona Senator McCain and Alaska Gov. Palin, they often take the maverick course against the Party faithful's wishes. In a country originally founded by rebels, we should remember - even though our command of our own history these days is atrocious - that this is not necessarily a bad thing.

There's an inherent weakness in the Democrats camp. Supposedly, theirs is the progressive party, yet they've chosen a candidate who represents the Democratic commitment to the left-wing's ideological status quo. Where's the Change there? Obama, for all his rhetorical finery, is a politician's politician, revealing little of what he really feels but saying what he thinks the voters want to hear (even if he doesn't mean it). The mystery around him is thus real, but the aura is false. He's done a terrific - laudable, even - job of selling himself, but seems to forget that employers these days - and in this case, I speak of the American people - like knowing as much as they can about their prospective employees. Not just the good stuff.

So far, the only thing Americans really know about Obama is that he's a left-winger who doesn't finish what he starts; if he did, he'd have checked his rabid ambition and waited until finishing a term in the Senate before seeking higher office.

Also hampering the Democrats is the palpable sense that they feel they are entitled to the White House.

After eight years of Bush, they think their "suffering", their psuedo-martyrdom at the hands of Republicans and the Bush Administration, has earned them the right to not only gain the Executive Branch, but extend their control of the Legislative. Sure, they celebrate the first-ever nomination of an African-American as a major party's presidential candidate, but then they contradict themselves - show their hypocrisy - by stating that what is important is not Senator Obama's skin color, but his message of Change. But since Obama's banner of Change is carried about on a flagpole called "false hope", because Obama is something of an enigma, they call attention whenever possible to skin color and mixed heritage of the freshman Senator of Illinois.

They think they're entitled to get away with it.

But despite the state of Education in the United States today, Americans are not stupid. They know they have ample reasons to distrust Senator Obama. They see how popular he is in Europe, but remember that it isn't Europeans who will be voting at the polls in November. Bigotry has little, or nothing, to do with their wariness regarding Obama. The shark in the water will only show his dorsal fin as he skims the surface of the water; Obama is only showing Americans...well, the scariest part of himself - the ideologue. Americans are finally starting to realize again what figures such as James Madison knew hundreds of years ago: That unbending partisanship, an unbending commitment to your Party's ideology, contributes to America's problems rather than ameliorates them.

And for this reason, Independents are, so far, the biggest chink in the Democrats' supposedly polished, impenetrable armor. The principles that Senator John McCain of Arizona and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska live by as politicians and human beings are the result of the lives they've lived, not merely of the Party they're members of. Unlike Senator Obama, whose partisanship can be counted on, and Senator Biden, McCain and Palin aren't known for playing it safe for their images' sake. They don't always adhere to the Republican Party's script. Obama might have lived an unconventional life, and Democrats can play that up, but then, so have McCain and Palin lived unconventional lives! The difference is, Obama and Biden are conventional politicians. McCain and Palin aren't.

Like it or not, this difference will make a difference in the minds of independent voters. Moreover, it will also make a difference in the minds of voters such as myself, an independent-minded registered Republican, and even Democrats who aren't sold on Obama or are disappointed with Hillary Clinton's defeat. Americans need not, should not, place their hopes on any set of politicians, right-wing or left-wing, conservative or liberal. They should, however, be able to place their confidence in their politicians, to be confident about them. Hope is a vague feeling, a general positiveness without much focus. Confidence, though also a feeling, is focused and reassuring. Those who merely have hope for the future are fatalistic; those who are confident about it know they have reason to be.

Senators Obama and Biden (Osama bin Laden? Nah...but close) say "It's time to change America." Their diagnosis of the problem is wrong. It's not America that needs to change, but the status quo in Washington. Liberlas are more intransigent in their ideas than conservatives. I'm confident that though Obama/Biden's rhetoric might not yet be seen for the sham it is, as Election Day nears, more and more people will come to their senses. Change in administration, as I've said in previously, comes not from any particular candidate, but is mandated by the Constitution. But if change can come via a candidate, I don't see change in another president from Illinois and a vice president from Delaware.

But a President from Arizona?

And a Vice President from Alaska?

That would be different, wouldn't it?

Government and Gay Marriage

Senator John Quincy Adams, in a letter from Washington, DC, wrote to his father John, formerly the second president of the United States, "This is now in general the great art of legislation at this place...To do a thing by assuming the appearance of preventing it. To prevent a thing by assuming that of doing it." (He was trying to stop the spread of slavery into Louisiana Purchase territory). I share the preceding quote only because it recently came to my attention that Arizonans are once again being asked to vote on an amendment to our State constitution addressing gay marriage.

Alas, how far we have allowed Government to stray from its Purpose, and how ignorant today of that Purpose our Society is!

What does gay marriage have to do with law and order? Do we really presume, is it fair to assume, that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic, wary as they were of overbearing interference of any sort on the part of centralized Government - local or national - in the private affairs of the People, intended the State or National Governments to over-regulate Nuptials along with Commerce? And as far as issues go, should homosexual unions concern us, one way or the other, more than the dismal state of public education in the Grand Canyon State? Tell me true, just how much Government do we want in our lives? How much is too much for our own good?

Mind you, Arizona law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. An amendment reminding Arizonans of this fact would be redundant, though I to some degree sympathize with - or rather, understand - the paranoia of those supportive of it. For here is the predicament we face, not only in Arizona, but throughout our Union:

Were there an amendment, or a court ruling, which effectively legalized homosexual marriage in Arizona, my native State, my first home, it is likely that earnest defenders of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) "rights" would be as supportive of such an act - of such government intrusion in the private lives of Arizonans - as they are now opposed to the particular measure being discussed presently, which would explicitly prohibit gay marriage here. And though LGBT activists fancy themselves guardians of Liberty and Human Rights, they are hypocrites, unless they are as opposed to a Government blessing gay marriage as they are to a Government proscribing it.

Given past developments in California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, their hypocrisy is self-evident. Or as Thomas Paine wrote in his second "American Crisis" paper addressed to Lord Howe in January 1777, regarding the Quakers in Philadelphia who took pains to reassure his lordship of their allegiance to George III: "These men are continually harping on the great sin of our bearing arms, but the king of Britain may lay waste the world in blood and famine, and they, poor fallen souls, have nothing to say."

*

Should it be approved, gay marriage would not contribute to national progress. Nor would it hinder such progress, if not recognized. But this should not be either the State or Federal Governments' concern. It is not an existential issue; it would be as erroneous to say the Revolutionary War was fought so that gays might marry each other, as it would be to say that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. Nor is this about "civil rights"; the very idea that anyone should have - or be denied - political rights based on the type of relationship, or sex, they have is absurd, but the last time I checked, homosexuals have the right to vote and hold political office.

The chief end of Government - it's raison d'etre, according to the philosophy of those who established The United States of America and blessed the Union with long standing instruments, such as the federal Constitution - is the preservation of individual Liberty, and contrary to conventional wisdom, this does not mean one can do whatever he wishes, irrespective of the effects on others. It does mean, at some level, treating others as you wish to be treated. It does not mean everyone should have their way; just as Government must be restrained, so must we guard against unbridled majorities or tyrannical minorities.

Just as Government should have no say in what religious beliefs you have, or deny, and should not punish you for adhering to certain spiritual beliefs or for lacking them, it is also the case that Government should not possess the unmitigated right to tell you whom you can or cannot wed. Love, we should remember, is rarely respectful of legal boundaries. However, at the same time, I do not feel that a Government selected by a majority should be manipulated to suit the demands of a minority, a minority which is offended that the majority disagrees with it (leading the former to adopt elitist sentiments).

In other words, though I am against Government banning gay marriage, I am as equally - or more - against Government sanctioning it. If I had to choose between one measure or the other, let there be no mystery as to which would have my greatest support. I am entitled to my own opinion, am I not? I surely am, even if, to quote Buckley, those who "claim to want to give a hearing to other views...are shocked and offended to learn that there are other views."

Henry David Thoreau said, in his 1849 tract on Civil Disobedience, "To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government." Arbitrary laws, such as those seeking to ban flag burning, or unnecessary amendments prohibiting gay marriage (in a State with laws already on the books effectively banning it), do nothing to make our Government better. At the same time, those who via so-called "activist courts" seek to subvert the will and decisiveness of a reasonable majority of the electorate in favor of gay marriage would do us, our State constitution, and our democratic system no favors.

"That government is best which governs the least," said Thomas Paine. How little Common Sense we have today, failing to recognize the truth of such an aphorism!

Change I Already Believe In

How can people get all worked up over the false hope being propagated by Senator Barack Obama? His claim to be an agent of change is disingenuous, because the agent of change is not Senator Obama, but the American System. The agent of change is the Constitution of the United States, especially the Twenty-Second Amendment, which instituted presidential term limits. "Change we can believe in" is coming whether or not Sen. Obama wins the 2008 election, and notwithstanding the wholly, obviously false charges that a President McCain would simply continue the policies of George W. Bush (after all, media history shows how often the latter two were at odds, doesn't it?). Change is our destiny.

That a great many Americans are willing to go along with Barack Obama's claims, or not question them, demonstrates to me the lowly stature of our Constitution in this day and age. Such is that compact's plight that the American Civil Liberties Union is able to get away with claiming the Bush Administration is trampling on our rights at the same time the ACLU itself is committed to trampling on Americans' right to bear arms, which despite uber-liberal spin, is not limited to those in service of State militias (that right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, was inspired by British oppressions and by the Founders was seen as a fundamental protection of personal liberty). Freedom, eh? According to your POV.

Yes, politicians can be and often are agents of change. But in an election year - especially a general election year in which the Office of the President is up for grabs after a Chief Executive's maximum two terms and the incumbent Vice President isn't in the running - "change" relies not on the election of one candidate or another, but in a faithful adherence to the literal and legal provisions of the federal covenant which binds together this Union. We are, as the Founders wished, a Nation ruled by firm laws, not fickle men. In fact, by upholding those laws, especially the Supreme Law of the Land, we the People each and every election year are also agents of change, in concert with our Constitution.

Unlike those whose bumper stickers celebrate the approach of President Bush's last day in office, I look forward to next year's inauguration with hope...not in anticipation of an Obama victory, or even a McCain win, but because on Inauguration Day, a great thing happens. Prior to the birth of the United States and the adoption of the Constitution, peaceful transference of government - republican or monarchic - was a rare occurrence. When after serving two terms, George Washington stood in the same room as John Adams and watched the latter take the presidential Oath of Office, the press of the time gushed, "Thus ended a scene the parallel of which was never before witnessed in any country."

Election years are, more or less, always fun for me. Whereas others are enamored of "the theory of natural selection," and advocate constantly in favor of it, I am myself far more fascinated by - and protective of - the process of democratic selection. Disagree though I may with the stances of one or both of the candidates standing for a particular office, there are few things more intellectually satisfying to me than waiting in anticipation of the results of a vote. When someone I didn't wish to be elected wins, I take comfort from the fact that so long as "We the People" fulfill our duties and responsibilities under both the Federal and our State Constitutions, change we can believe in will always be possible.

I take comfort because Change, as you can see, is not the purview solely of Barack Obama or his campaign. Change needn't be an overt "campaign promise" of Senator John McCain, either. Change is coming, no thanks to either of the candidates, save for the fact that they are competing for the position George W. Bush currently holds. And who is to say that when Inauguration Day 2009 comes around, the following won't apply to "Bush 43" (as the next President of the United States is sworn in, and as about his predecessor another President once mused upon taking office over two centuries ago): "Me thought I heard him think, 'Ay, I am fairly out and you are fairly in! See which of us will be the happiest!'"

That, my fellow Americans, is Change of the sort I not only can believe in, but that I already do believe in.

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?


*
**
***
**
*

FURTHER READING:

"Obama's Revisionist History"
by Karl Rove

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.