McCain Has Military Experience to Question, Obama Does Not
Jun 29, 2008 Political
Retired General Wesley Clark, a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and in particular Barack Obama, has questioned John McCain’s military credentials. Clark stated that McCain has not held a position with executive responsibility and stated that John McCain never led troops into combat. John McCain has stated that he led the largest fighter squadron in the US Navy but Clark asserts that is not enough to serve as Commander in Chief. Clark stated that McCain never ordered the bombs to drop and that flying in a fighter jet and getting shot down does not qualify him to be president.
Fair enough, but then the question would have to go to what qualifications Barack Obama has to lead the country as the President. Clark answered that Obama had been a community organizer in Chicago (and all those communities are boarded up) and that he also served eight years in the Ilinois Legislature and that Barry was running on strength and character.
Notice nowhere in there did Clark state that Obama had any military service. If Clark wants to discuss the quality of military service and whether or not it qualifies one to lead the country then certainly he needs to look at a person who has NO military experience and acknowledge that since Obama never served he is even less qualified than than McCain to serve as Commander in Chief. The quality of McCain’s service is being assailed by Clark but McCain has the military service and has forgotten more about the military than Obama will ever know. I really don’t think this is a battle that Clark and the Obama campaign wants to pick since McCain has more military knowledge in his little finger than Obama has in his entire body. If they want to contrast qualities to serve as Commander in Chief then I think Obama is going to lose. Perhaps John McCain never led troops is some fashion that satisfies Clark but Obama never led troops period.
As for the idea that serving as a community organizer somehow qualifies as executive experience, Clark needs to take a drug test because only a drug addled brain could make such a claim. It is absolutely outrageous that Wesley Clark could dismiss John McCain’s military service and all his years of public service as insufficient experience to run this country but in the same breath claim that serving as a community organizer and spending eight years in a state legislature qualifies Obama. What is even more amazing is that Clark said that Obama is running on his strength of character and his good judgment.
Well hell, I feel a lot better now. Obama is running on strength of character and good judgment. Whew, for a minute I was worried he might not have actual experience that would qualify him to lead the country.
I guess this good judgment is all relative. I mean, was it good judgment for Obama to attend a church that espoused hatred for America and blamed white people for all the ills of society and to stay there for twenty years? Was it good judgment for Obama to work a shady deal with Tony Rezko (which Obama admitted was bad judgment), and to keep company with a known domestic terrorist? Obama has said “[fill in name] is not the person I knew so many times it is a soundbite by itself. If good judgment is the standard by which we establish executive experience then it seems as if Barry Obama fails miserably.
Obama has some very shady associations and some of the tactics he has used to gain political office (at all levels) are suspect and they leave one to question this strength of character Clark claims qualifies him to be president.
Wesley Clark served honorably in Vietnam and was wounded in the line of duty. I would never disparage his service to this country because I have more tact and honor than he does (though I have questioned some of the things he has done while in the service and on the campaign trail). His service gives him great insight but he is not qualified to judge the quality and character of John McCain’s service. It is tactless and dishonorable to do so. I would venture to say that McCain’s time in a POW camp allowed him to demonstrate more character and sound judgment than Obama ever has.
General Clark, you certainly have a right to bring up McCain’s military service and to claim it does not pass your muster as qualification to serve as Commander in Chief but when you are doing that please keep in mind that Obama has NO military experience and that fact, by default, makes him less qualified than McCain to serve as Commander in Chief.
The empty suit has surrogates using an empty resume to show experience. Well, at least he still has good judgment and strength of character….Not.
Source:
Herald Tribune
Tags: clark, McCain, military experience, Obama
Push for White Guilt Starts Early
Jun 8, 2008 Political
In the past week Barack Hussein Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee to run against John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) for the presidency. While it was a long fight and a bit rocky it has finally ended with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s suspension of her candidacy and her support of Obama. Make no mistake, this is a historic moment in the American story and that should never be taken lightly. A man who identifies as black has secured a nomination and that has never before happened. While we could argue over his ability or merits for the job or even if it was foolish to select him those arguments would be based on any number of things none of which is his color.
Throughout this campaign season though, there have been rumblings about race. Certainly some statements were racist or referred to race but often the statements were made racist in an effort to gain sympathy for Obama and add to the ever increasing list of things we cannot discuss. Obama and his campaign have been very effective at framing those items that may be discussed and have forced opponents to tread lightly less they be labeled racist. The population of West Virginia was labeled as racist because it did not vote for Obama and instead went for Clinton by a large margin. No one even considered that maybe the people liked her message better. They were automatically racists because they did not vote for the anointed one. It is important to note that these were Democratic primaries so the people who were being labeled as racists were Democrats and it is important to note that the people labeling West Virginians as racist excused and ignored the real racists, Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger.
The idea that if someone does not vote for Obama is because of racism is gaining speed and many will quietly push that message. A piece by Errin Haines of the AP’s Atlanta bureau points this out very specifically. Haines, a black woman who covers race and civil rights, describes the elation among the members of the black community at Obama’s selection and the possibility of him being elected president. Their elation is somewhat subdued because blacks are worried about coded references to Obama that set him apart from the rest:
Still, pesky rumors that Obama is actually a Muslim persist. Every now and then, someone publicly calls him by his full name — Barack Hussein Obama — as if to put out a coded reminder of what sets this candidate apart from the rest.
Obama’s candidacy is about race and it isn’t. It has illuminated the fact that black and white America don’t really know each other all that well, and has forced both sides to rethink what they thought they knew about each other and themselves.
Even after Obama accepts the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 — 45 years to the day after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech — black Americans can’t — or won’t — exhale until the votes are counted, and we have 21 more Tuesdays to go.
Our pained history has taught us that the best intentions don’t always translate into action. As we stand next to white Americans at the polls on Nov. 4, we will wonder:
“What did you do when you were alone in that booth? Did you go with that sticker, that T-shirt, that screensaver and vote for Obama, or was that just for show?” Yahoo News
The use of Obama’s full name, while a reminder to some, is nothing unusual. We call her Hillary RODHAM Clinton. For the longest time Obama’s campaign and the liberal blogs referred to him as BHO and unless I missed something, that H stands for Hussein. It is the man’s name and while it congers negativity in some Obama does not help the issue with his treatment of Israel and his insistence on meeting terrorist leaders in the Muslim world without precondition.
I am at a loss as to what Haines means by best intentions. Let me make this clear, the intention of all Americans should be to elect the person who they believe is the best for this country regardless of what sex or what color the candidates are. No election, but particularly this one, is some exercise in affirmative action that is designed to elevate a black man to the highest office in this nation just because of some good intent or because of white guilt and it is not to break a glass ceiling to make women feel good about themselves. If people vote for Obama because they believe he is the best for the job then that is their right but to suggest that there is some intention to right all the past wrongs by anointing Obama and anyone who fails to vote for him is racist is wrong and anyone who espouses that point of view should not be allowed out in public without supervision.
Haines indicates that when blacks are at the polls and see whites they will wonder what they did [while in the booth]. In other words, did you vote for Obama like you are supposed to or did you commit a racist act and vote for someone other than Obama? You do not have to wonder about this white guy Errin because I will NOT be voting for Obama. It has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with him being the most liberal Senator in the Senate. It has everything to do with his socialist policies and lack of leadership experience. It has to do with his pro abortion stance, his refusal to vote against late term and partial birth abortions and his vote to allow babies to die after they are born because their mothers do not want them. It has to do with his disregard for the Second Amendment and his desire to disarm all law abiding citizens. It has to do with his disregard for the men and women in the armed forces and his desire to hand them a defeat from DC that the enemy cannot exact on the battlefield. It has to do with any number of tried and failed liberal policies that have created a class of people, mostly black, dependent upon government for everything and unable to think or work for themselves, a mentality that led to chaos in New Orleans after Katrina hit. However, if you must believe that anyone who does not vote for Barry is racist because they refused to vote for a black man, let me ease your mind.
Barack Hussein Obama is half black and half white. Consider it this way, I will be voting against the part of him that is white and unfortunately I cannot do so without also voting against the black part. While my vote will have nothing to do with color, there are those, like you Ms. Haines, who will make it all about color so this should help ease your narrow minds.
Americans are no more racist for not voting for Obama than they are ageists if they do not vote for McCain or sexists if they did not vote for Hillary. It comes down to qualifications and how the voting public assesses them. If it involves something else then people are misguided.
Amazingly, the black vote went greater than 90% for Obama in the primary and it will do so in the general election (they are almost always greater than 90% for the Democrat). How is it OK that a portion of the black population voted for Obama simply because of his color but if white people vote overwhelmingly for a candidate who happens to be white, they are racists?
Errin Haines should rethink the reason we vote. If she is hung up on the good intentions rather than the good of the nation (according to the voter’s perception) then perhaps she needs to go back to school.
Tags: affirmative action, Clinton, errin haines, liberal prattle, McCain, Obama, racism
McCain Wants Man on Mars
John McCain was at a town hall event in Florida when he stated that he would like to see a program where NASA put a man on the red planet:
Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a “better set of priorities” for NASA that would better engage the public. Breitbart
Rumors that Las Vegas odd makers are giving 100:1 odds that McCain wants that man to be Barack Obama and that he would like the mission to start right after the Democratic Convention have not been verified.
Obama was Planning Trip to Iraq
May 28, 2008 Military, Political
John McCain has been hammering B. Hussein Obama pretty hard because Obama has declared that the US lost in Iraq and that the surge was not working and he made these assessments even though he has not been to the country in over two years. Obama has also not spoken with General Petraeus other than to grandstand during the General’s last briefing to Congress. John McCain suggested that Obama needed to go to Iraq and see for himself. He also suggested that before Obama engages in unconditional talks with our enemies he should consider doing so with our top commanders, particularly General Petraeus.
Well lo and behold B. Hussein Obama is considering a trip to Iraq. His people say that he has been thinking about this for some time (sure) and Obama indicated that he did not want to go there just for some political stunt:
“I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt.”
“I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders,” he said in the interview. “I’m not there to try to score political points or perform. The work they’re doing there is too important.”
What Obama is saying is that he would never use Iraq as a political pawn because the work our men and women are doing there is too important. No, Obama would never play politics with this important issue. Just one problem. His people stated this about his plans:
Obama’s campaign has been considering an overseas trip since last year to beef up his foreign policy credentials, but the extended fight for the Democratic nomination with Hillary Rodham Clinton has delayed those plans.
So Obama does not want to be part of a political stunt but he has been considering a trip to Iraq to beef up his foreign policy credentials. In reality, he is not going to talk to the troops or commanders and the work they are doing is not that important because B. Hussein Obama needs to beef up his credentials by going to Iraq. Obama would never play politics with this important issue but going just to beef up your creds is playing politics with this important issue.
It is also playing politics with this important issue to talk about a complete and unconditional withdraw from Iraq regardless of what commanders on the ground advise just to appease (there is that word again) the nutroots on the left fringe of the party. To decide on withdraw with little or no regard for what the real military professionals have to say is pure politics and is a move designed to win votes from those who are tired of the conflict.
I have my doubts as to whether Obama was planning a trip to Iraq or not but the fact is this little tidbit was not revealed until McCain started hammering him about it. No matter what he or his people say it will always look like McCain shamed him into going.
I wonder if he will meet with General Petraeus? I think Obama is trying to avoid the man because he will then be forced to either agree with a commander on the ground or disregard what he says. The former will tick off Obama’s base and the latter will show an arrogance toward a man who is about eight years older and has a hell of a lot more military knowledge than Obama will ever have.
McCain backed Obama in a corner with this one and it will be fun to see how this plays out. I bet Obama comes out of it with a lot more gaffes. Who knows, maybe he will come back with some more family war stories.
Obama Pulling Old Dem Line on Social Security
May 18, 2008 Political
Barack Obama might say he is a new kind of politician and he might say that he is not part of the DC cabal that runs the country from smoke filled back rooms but one thing is for sure, Obama is a typical liberal and uses their tired old arguments.
Obama is warning senior citizens that their Social Security is in trouble if they elect John McCain because he favors privatization. Oh heavens no, not Social Security. Isn’t that the same program that Al Gore and then John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) said would be threatened if seniors were foolish enough to elect (and then reelect) George Bush? Amazingly, no one has missed a Social Security check in the last eight years.
This is all part of the Democrat’s very simplistic game plan. Every four years they trot out the same crap and try to scare one group or another into voting for them because the evil Republicans will take away everything. Social Security is always a hot button issue around election time and politicians love to tell us how they are going to make it better blah, blah. The truth is, the day after the election they forget about it. They continue to kick the can down the road until the next election and then they play the same game. Barack Hussein Obama is a typical politician and he is lying to the American people in order to get elected.
No, Obama is not lying about McCain favoring privatization but he is lying when he says that Social Security would be in jeopardy under a McCain presidency. Social Security is already in danger and it is because it is run by the government. The politicians confiscate money from us (for our own goo) and yet they will not let us decide how OUR money should be invested. They throw it into one big pool and then redistribute it to the retired.
Years ago there was plenty of money and SS took in more than it spent each month. However, the politicians took that money and spent it on social programs and now the system is going broke and will be out of money in the not too distant future. The Democrat’s solution is to take more of your money and let them handle it. They earn less than 1% on any money that is left after they raid the cash box and that is supposed to make us feel good. Additionally, SS has been designated a government benefit by the SCOTUS and that benefit can be stopped at any time. We are not entitled to what we paid in and in most cases we will be lucky to get it.
Privatization is the only way to make SS work. The money would go into accounts in each worker’s name. Those accounts would belong to the worker and no one could take any of the money and that means that politicians could not spend it on other programs. If a worker died prior to retirement then the account could be passed to his heirs thus keeping it out of the hands of those in government who have proven time and again that they are not fiscally responsible. Social Security is in a mess because it is run by the government. That is the plain and simple truth. They have it and they control it which means they are responsible.
Senator Obama is playing the same old tired game because he refuses to face the fact that Americans deserve a retirement savings plan that is as good as the one every federal employee, including all members of Congress, have. This is particularly true since the money that funds SS is taken from workers. Allowing people to invest their money would make them well off when they retire and it would keep them from being dependent upon the government. This is what scares Obama and the Dems. If people retire wealthy then they will not be affected by scare tactics like those being employed by Obama.
It is amazing that the very people who say Republicans are divisive and use scare tactics in order to get elected are using scare tactics and being divisive in order to get elected.
Source:
My Way News
Why the Dems do not want you to control your money:
Assumptions. Annual salary of $35,000 and it does not change. A worker starting at 22 and working until 67. Social Security rate of 12.5% (6.25 worker and 6.25 employer). Assuming a 1% rate on the SS invested monthly for 45 working years an employee would have $248,999. Assuming the average market rate of 6% the employee would have $1,010,967. The worker would be about 5 times as wealthy and this would not bode well for the task master in government. Keep in mind that salaries usually go up and that the market only averages 6% and is usually better. If you can support yourself the government is unhappy. The whole idea behind welfare and other social programs is to keep people enslaved to the government.
Tags: liberal malfeasance, lies, McCain, Obama, privatization, social security