As usual, I’ve been listening to what Senator Obama has been saying from the campaign trail, and I’ve come to a very important conclusion. His ideology has some very significant inconsistencies. The statements that brought this to the forefront this week have been his statements about Iraq.

Unfortunately, the military and political situation in Iraq has been mired by the media, and by some polls, only 34% of Americans support the “war”. What Senator Obama and most Americans have lost sight of the fact that the situation in Iraq is a very crucial battle for global stability. The recent tactic that Senator Obama has been using in his presidential campaign is enforcing his stance against the invasion of Iraq. Well, he was a liberal Illinois senator who was adhering to his liberal ideology. So, it didn’t take moral courage or strong insight to oppose a war. It was more of an impulse than a decision; much like a persons leg jerks when a doctor taps his or her knee with a hammer. 

People need to remember that Obama has some issues that are very ingrained in his liberal ideology, and will certainly divide this nation. Though the evidence is largely unpublicized, the small indicators are everywhere. For example, when asked about his favorite actors, Senator Obama said he like Jimmy Stewart, Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart. These men are classic actors, who no one can deny as significant figures in American entertainment history. Heck, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is even one of my favorite movies. Senator Obama followed up those three great actors by saying his favorite actresses included Meryl Streep and Susan Sarandon. Why is that significant? Because those two women have a fairly mediocre film history, but are adamant anti-war activists. Meryl Streep has been in two outwardly anti-war and anti-American movies in the last year, “Lions for Lambs” and “Rendition”, both of which were box office flops. Susan Sarandon has led protests all over the world against US troops accusing them of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and stating things like people join the military because they don’t have any other opportunities and soldiers are below average intelligence. Such “great actresses” who are adored by Senator Obama simply point to his extremist beliefs against our military past and future.

Senator Obama has used the withdrawal from Iraq as a major platform for his candidacy. He has backpedaled a bit on his “immediate withdrawal” policy, but he has said that he would set a timeline for withdrawal. However, he did say that he would send Soldiers back to Iraq if Al Qaeda established bases of operations in Iraq. The McCain Campaign was quick to react to this absurdity. Senator McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda is already in Iraq, and it is the U.S. that is preventing them from having destructive results in Iraq. Not to be outdone, Senator Obama stated that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. I believe that question is still to be answered, but there are some facts that I have seen with my own eyes that indicate there was a strong relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups.

Senator Obama, like most liberals, likes to use the argument that the U.S. invasion was about Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction. Ok, we didn’t find a smoking gun that supported the WMD intelligence, but while in Iraq, I spent ten months side-by-side with an Army nuclear, biological and chemical specialist. We found mobile labs built into buses and truck trailers.  We also found truck trailers filled with lab equipment and blueprints buried in the middle of the desert, and we found centrifuges the size of VW Bugs hidden in underground caverns. Unfortunately, very few people in America believe such evidence that points to Saddam’s ability to produce WMD. Fine. That issue left the barn years ago, and is politically irrelevant.

So, was the invasion of Iraq significant for the war against terrorism? That question is far easier to answer, but again, not publicized enough to be overwhelmingly compelling. Again, I can tell you what I saw during the initial invasion of Iraq, which was supposedly before terrorist organizations were in Iraq. It is very common knowledge that Saddam had a policy of giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. I believe that figure was $25,000 per suicide bomber. Doesn’t that appear to be financial support of terrorists?

Additionally, when we first arrived in Baghdad, my unit had a bit of a territory scuffle with a Marine unit because there was a suicide bomber vest factory in southeast Baghdad, and both units wanted credit for exploiting it. Unfortunately, we were too naïve to understand that the discovery would be largely ignored. I’m not a detective, but doesn’t the manufacturing and distribution of suicide bomber vests provide material support for terrorist activities? I’ve also participated in the operations that investigated or destroyed terror training camps in northern Iraq that where there for years before the 2003 invasion.

Senator Obama is going to try to use two tactics to shore up his stance against the Iraq war. His first tactic will be the legitimacy of the initial invasion. This tactic has already gained a lot of ground because the Bush administration has done such a poor job of explaining the terror ties to Iraq. So, arguments of supporting UN resolutions, the overthrowing of a murderous dictator, and the geographic significance of Iraq to other Islamofascist nations is probably a tactic that Senator Obama, with the support of a liberal media, will use very successfully because he can tie any Republican back to the “failed policies” of President Bush. Recent successes by General Petraeus in Iraq have been ignored by the media, so the average American will step right in line with the “failed policies” argument. Ideology trumps facts unless people are willing to do a little more homework than watch CNN or listen to NPR.

The second tactic Senator Obama is sure to use is the cost of the war in Iraq and the distraction from Afghanistan. In a speech last week, Senator Obama stated that the U.S. is spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. He went on to say that money could be used at home to support education and healthcare. That is a very affective, but inconsistent issue for Senator Obama to head toward. Sure, war costs a lot of money, but funding national defense is the most overt federal policy outlined in the Constitution. Yes, that silly little document that Senator Obama wishes to ignore or re-write defends our presence in Iraq. 

The fiscal responsibility of Iraq will ultimately preserve the economic success at home. Muslim extremists have been battling the U.S. very aggressively since the Carter administration. On 9-11, they attacked a symbol of American and Global economic prosperity, and over a million American jobs were lost within three months. There has not been a significant terrorist attack on US soil since 2001, and the economic effects of another attack could be far more devastating than the costs of any sustained military operation. Whether you want to believe it or not, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have kept Muslim extremists a bit too occupied to attack the U.S. infrastructure.

This irresponsible ideology of “saving money” by withdrawing from Iraq is inconsistent when you look at Senator Obama’s Globalized worldview. He is willing to introduce a Global Poverty bill, and he expresses the United States’ need to be cooperative in a global society, but he thinks it isn’t necessary to spend money in a destabilized country in order to achieve peace and build alliances. Not to mention that spending money on government programs at home has proven to weaken the United States economy and citizen resolve.

Senator Obama, much like his Democratic predecessors, has no clue on the gravity of Islamic terrorism on the US economy and safety. Iraq, though many would argue was a war waged on an illegal precedence, is the key to the future of peace and stability all over the world. So, Senator Obama needs “live in the now, man”, and find solutions that will address the current situation. Unfortunately, his ideology prevents him from making reasonable or responsible choices on the economy and national defense. 

 I have had increasing frustration over the last few weeks when it comes to how uninformed the average American voter is. Admittedly, I do pay attention to issues that affect the world more than the average person. However, it blows my mind that some guy who lives in his mom’s basement and smokes pot all day has the same vate in an election as I do. Ok, that may sound elitist and aristocratic, but keep in mind that I do openly support someone’s right to be ignorant and uninformed. I don’t have to be happy about it, but I do still support it. Unfortunately, some of that support comes in taxes that I have to pay and time I have to spend away from my family for someone to be ignorant and lazy, but I digress.

Please note, that I don’t have a perfect memory, so the following quotes and discussions are paraphrasing what I heard. I did my best to summarize what Obama’s followers have said.

Anyway, my frustration began to boil after I heard Chris Matthews of MSNBC interview a Texas state senator, Kirk Watson, on supporting Barack Obama. Chris Matthews openly supports Obama, so it was very surprising to here the interview. To summarize, Christ Matthews asked the senator if he could site any of Obama’s previous accomplishments as a Senator. The Texas senator could not site a single thing. He simply said, it wasn’t important what Senator Obama has accomplished because he could unite this country. Fine Senator Watson, how is he going to do that? I’m sure Mr. Watson couldn’t answer that question either.

This level of ignorance can also be seen by the “average” voter. The other day I was listening to the Michael Medved Show on the radio, and a lady called in on the verge of tears. She said that “America is broken and hurting and we need Senator Obama to be elected so he can unite this country.” 

Mr. Medved followed up, “How will Senator Obama unite this country?” 

The caller answered, “Because he has a good heart, he can heal this country’s brokenness.”

Mr. Medved, “Excuse me please, ma’am, I need you to answer HOW he will do that.”

Caller, “I just drive around and see people hurting all around me. There are people who can’t afford to pay their mortgages, and homeless people pushing carts down the street. They need Senator Obama to help them.”

After a half dozen more attempts by Mr. Medved to get the called to answer the “how” question, he gave up and went on to another caller.

On a more pointedly racial note, a listener of 97.9 FM in Dallas (a hip-hop radio station) called in the morning show and ranted about how black men have to ban together to vote for one of “their own”. Another caller followed up with comments about how white people have been keeping them down for too long, and Obama needed to be elected so black people could have a voice.

The examples are pretty much everywhere. The American voter is being caught up in the whirlwind of a rock star, and don’t have a clue why. The truth of the matter is that if someone takes an objective and rational look at the world, they will see that Obama is the worst possible choice for president. Unfortunately, most people are compelled by their emotions, and are influenced by a biased, sound-bite media.

I heard a very compelling interview this week with Wayne Perryman. Mr. Perryman is a Seattle area pastor and the author of the book “Unfounded Loyalty.” In the interview, and in his book, Mr. Perryman exposes the Democratic Party’s history with black America. I have known for quite a while that the Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln, and I also knew that the Republican Congress in the 1960s was the key to passing of many key civil rights laws. What I was unaware of was how aggressively and violently the Democratic Party oppressed minorities over the past 150 years.

In today’s day and age, the media and popular culture have demonized any Republican candidate as a racist when he or she addresses issues of government welfare, but the reality is that the Democrats are being more oppressive to minorities than Republicans ever have been. Senator Obama’s proposed policies further that tradition of oppression. Senator Obama wants bigger government, which history has proven that higher taxes lead to slower economic growth. When businesses don’t grow, they lay people off. Who gets laid off first? The people who are paid the least or middle management (aka the middle class) are the first to suffer. 

Well, Senator Obama would argue that the government would even the playing field by supporting those who lose their jobs with taxes collected from those who run the companies that laid them off. “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” Well, isn’t that compassionate? Doesn’t that solve the problem? NO! Government programs have a chain reaction that can only harm in the long run.

The “War on Poverty” has been raging for years, and victory is further from reality than it was when a lot of national welfare programs were enacted. I don’t think that these programs are fully irrelevant or unnecessary. In fact, I probably wouldn’t be where I am today if my family hadn’t gotten a little help when I was young. The essential word there is LITTLE. The Democrats’ “War on Poverty” is nothing more than enabling and oppressing America’s poorest neighborhoods, which unfortunately are minority neighborhoods. The irony about Senator Obama’s enthusiasm about government programs is that he is a product of the free enterprise that he is now trying to cripple. There’s a word for that….let’s see….it’s right on the tip of my tongue…. Hypocrite! 

In case you aren’t sure how successful the government has been at managing your money, I suggest you look at the state of Social Security and Medicare. That’s thousands of dollars I’ll never see again. Assuming even the worst market performance over the last 35 years, I could have turned my Social Security and Medicare expenses from last year alone into approximately $175,000 at retirement age if I could have invested that money into a mutual fund, which I actually would have done. However, since I get the privilege of supporting such a wonderful government program, I had to put almost 10 times more money toward Social Security and Medicare than I did toward my 401K. So, thanks to a government program that is trying to help take care of me in my final years, I potentially will spend my final years as a slave to the government rather than as financially independent. That sort of puts government programs a bit more in perspective, doesn’t it? 

On a final, Shakespearian-type comical note, I was watching a live, man-on-the-street interview the other night, and a reporter read some quotes from both Michelle and Barack Obama’s early political days to an enthusiastic follower. The quotes followed the lines of “Place the black community first”, “Black people must shed their white oppressors in order to get ahead”, etc. After reading the quotes, the reported asked the question, “Don’t these comments sound more divisive than unifying?” The supporter, a young white male, went flush, started to wobble like he was going to faint, slumped his shoulders, and then stammered, “I...I...I have no comment. I…I…I can’t comment about that.” Now, the quotes the reporter read were from college papers that the Obamas had written, so politically, they are almost irrelevant, but the reaction of the supporter was more tragic than if the reporter had just told him his mother was a serial killer. Like I’ve said before, if you’re going to place your salvation in a politician, you’re bound to get burned.

I was talking to a very good friend of mine last night (who just happens to be a youth pastor), and he enthusiastically stated that he believed Obama was the Anti-Christ. I countered this comment by stating that Senator Obama could not be the Biblical Anti-Christ because he doesn’t meet the Revelation description or lineage. However, it did remind me of some other potential “anti-Christs” people have brought up over the past few years. Humorously, in his first book, Glenn Beck stated that it was too obvious to assume Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ, but Hillary was a more likely.

Now, this is all humorous non-sense. Rather you believe the literal or symbolic interpretation of Revelation, or if you don’t believe it at all, many historical figures have displayed a lot of the characteristics of an Anti-Christ figure. Even the infamous Nostradamus, wrote of anti-Christs who would bring horrific destruction upon the Earth. The most notable that people believe he predicted was Hitler. I don’t personally believe that Nostradamus was a legitimate prophet or fortune teller, but his writings do indicate the historical trends of evil people who have global influence.

When asked about the Biblical interpretation of the Anti-Christ, I once heard a pastor say that Satan does not know when the end times will occur, so every generation probably has people in it who can emerge as the Anti-Christ. So, it is possible that the Anti-Christ does exist today. I am just certain that it is not Barack Obama.

However, if you look at Greek translation of the word “anti-Christ”, you will find that it means “in place of Christ” or a “substitute to Christ”. Bingo! My friend was on to something legitimate. Based on Michelle Obama’s diety-like comments of her husband, and some of the media quotes about the Illinois Senator, it is obvious that Obama is emerging as a religious figure who is worthy to be praised. Take a look at some of the quotes I have found about the messiah connotations and denotations concerning Barack.

"Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence."

"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament . . . I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."

"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored.”

Yes, most of these references appeal to the humanism form of religions, but his enthusiastic followers are definitely filling the human need for a higher power with the Senator. Many Christian writers call this need for a deity as a “God-shaped hole”, and this hole cannot be filled with the messiah from Illinois. Senator Obama is touting himself as pure and untainted by Washington politics, but any rational person can see this is part of his attempts to appeal to the emotions of voters.

Everyone from Christians to Atheists should take a good look at the Obama Religion because the more you rely on a human the more likely you will be deceived. Many may argue that Obama’s policies (Again, he doesn’t state policies, so we must assume.) are social programs similar to those outlined by the New Testament writers. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the government should feed the poor, and the only forms of socialism shown in the Bible were for the expansion of the church and for the care of believers.

Senator Obama has proved to be a great fundraiser. So, if he is so concerned about the poor, he should use his ability to raise money in order to start a foundation. He shouldn’t try to elevate himself as a chosen messiah who must reform America.

In defense of his book, “Liberal Fascism”, Jonah Goldberg said that fascism, communism and other forms of tyranny will not come to American marching behind red flags or by violent means, but will come with a smile. That was the first thing that came to mind when I heard portions of a speech that Michelle Obama gave a few weeks ago.

I don’t believe that Michelle Obama is a fascist or communist. She is a Princeton and Harvard graduate, but I don’t think she’s smart enough to figure out that her views are so contrary to foundational and traditional American values. While listening to her speech, the first thing that set off red flags was when Mrs. Obama said we need a government that can “fix our souls”. I’m not a historian, but I do know enough about history to know that anytime anyone says anything about the government doing anything to your soul, you should be very, very afraid. Additionally, Mrs. Obama said that “There is only one person running for office that can heal this nation, and that is Barack.” Well, I do believe there is someone who can heal this nation, but He is not from Chicago, and He is definitely not an elected official.

Christopher Hitchens, a prominent atheist writer and activist, is someone that I don’t agree with on anything. He believes that religion is the most destructive thing on the planet (although, I did hear on the news this morning manmade global warming was the most destructive force on Earth, but I was a bit confused as I chipped a half inch or ice off my car, so let’s stay focused on Mr. Hitchens’ assertions.). Mr. Hitchens does occasionally bring up a valid point with respect to socialist, communist, and fascist movements. He argues that these murderous regimes are almost always centered on a man who has been raised up as a deity or god-like figure.

Now, I understand that Mrs. Obama loves her husband and truly believes in him, but her deity-like references to Senator Obama are very disturbing. Both Senator and Mrs. Obama have studied Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and have tried to appeal to people using sing-song, gospel cadences in their speeches. But don’t be fooled, because they are not reverends.

Mrs. Obama later went on in her speech to say that her husband gave up an opportunity to get “rich on Wall Street” in order to serve as a community organizer in some tough neighborhoods. She stated that he went to areas where single mothers had lost trust in the government, and her husband went to rebuild their faith. Now, I don’t want to downplay Senator Obama’s service, but it was obviously a play for a career as an elected official or as an activist. I imagine that he did have some altruistic motivations, but I’m not that convinced of his sacrifice.

I’m not a huge fan of John McCain, but if you want to see sacrifice, I don’t think you should look in a rough Chicago neighborhood. You should probably look in a Vietnamese POW camp. After being imprisoned for two years, Senator McCain was given the option to go home. He turned down the favorable treatment and spent four more years being tortured. Additionally, Mitt Romney spent two and a half years as a Mormon missionary in France in the late 60’s. It takes a lot of guts and sacrifice to go door-to-door telling French people about your faith. Those two “evil republicans” demonstrate a lot more about service and sacrifice than a community organizer trying to rebuild faith in the government.

Before tuning out Mrs. Obama’s speech, I heard one more absurd assumption. She said that Americans were in debt because they had to use credit cards to pay their medical bills. Well, in many cases, that is probably true. However, her assertion that the sole function of credit cards for poor people is to pay medical bills is ridiculous and blatantly a play for an emotional response. I once heard on an investment program that the average American who buys a leather jacket on sale for $100, will pay $160 when they use a credit card due to all the interest and late payment fees. I’ve learned enough about credit cards to know that large credit card debts come from poor discipline and not medical emergencies. I recommend that Mrs. Obama read a Dave Ramsey book, or if she is short on time, she can watch “Maxed Out.” I understand her point was not about credit cards, but medical bills. However, it was an irresponsible display of misinformation because most medical debts are not with credit card companies but finance companies or medical offices themselves.

Listening to Mrs. Obama reminded me of (read with a sarcastic tone) a wonderful and historical quote. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” What a pleasant thought, huh? We all get what we need regardless of what we do for work. Mrs. Obama had some comments about that too. She said that Americans need to work hard to receive the benefits that would come from her husband if he is elected president. Did she recommend that we all start small businesses? Did she recommend that we get educated or learn a skill? Did she even recommend that we need to be more active in our communities? Nope, nope, and nope. She said that we all need to work hard to believe and work hard to hope for the future. Yep, that’s all we need to do, and her husband will lead us all to the Promised Land.

Let’s see here. Does that hold true for everything? If I work hard to hope and believe for a unicorn, do you think Senator Obama can get one for me? That would be a cool enough benefit that I might consider voting for him.

By the way, that wonderful quote that the Obama campaign keeps bringing to mind is from Karl Marx. He was the father of communism, and his ideals and philosophies led to the death of millions. Senator Obama’s policies are starting to sound a bit too much like Marxism for me to feel very comfortable.

Well, on a lighter note, a politician did bring a tear to my eye this week. There weren’t any chanting coeds or flying banners. And the voice delivering the speech was a bit shaky, but non-the-less the words were true. After winning the primary for Virginia, Senator McCain made the following quote, “I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me.” This quote is obviously a jab at Senators Clinton and Obama, but the spirit of his comment does reveal the diametric views between Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Realizing that the comment was also a reference to the resolve of the US military was what truly hit me emotionally. Senator McCain may not have the best policies, but he does understand the sacrifice of our fighting forces, and being reminded of that gets me every time.

Finally and admittedly, I have been a bit cynical about the Obama campaign, and I believe that it does have some merit considering his views and the enthusiasm of his supporters (or should I call them followers?). However, I have heard some encouraging words. In a radio broadcast the other day, Dave Ramsey stated something that was probably more true than what most people believe. He said that whoever is elected president will not change the economic future of this country. That power of this country’s future lies within the American people. I pray we use that power wisely.

Sure I will be holding my nose as I fill out my absentee ballot next fall, but I will fill in the bubble for Senator McCain. I’ve heard about a billion excuses so far on why conservatives shouldn’t vote for McCain, but I can give two very important reasons why everyone SHOULD vote for the “Maverick”.

1. The War on Terror
2. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

First of all, Senator McCain will be the toughest choice we have to fight the War on Terror. Many conservatives have argued that if we allow a liberal to be elected, then the country will shift back to the right. The theory is that the first two or four years of a Democrat presidency will be so devastating that Americans will rush to the polls to elect conservative congress members. I can look back to 1994 and marvel at Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America”. But can we really tolerate two years of talking with an enemy that wants to kill us while the president pushes and drafts a plan for surrender? The War on Terror will be long and hard enough as it is. John McCain can at least recognize that we fighting a noble and necessary war even if I don’t fully agree with his views on how to wage the war.

With respect to his views on the border and immigration (something that is actually part of the War on Terror), Senator McCain obviously has a failing grade thus far, but I believe that he will more likely adhere to the status quo. Yes, he does have Juan Hernandez as one of his advisors, but I think the American people can reign in Senator McCain’s weak border policies.

Now, Ms. Bader-Ginsburg is the model of what Hillary or Senator Obama will appoint as federal judges. She was a huge player in the ACLU, and any Democratic nomination will undoubtedly fall lock-step in with the ACLU beliefs. Why is that so bad? The founder of the ACLU made the following quotes:

"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal".

"Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."

Those quotes are nearly 90 years old, but based on the cases that the ACLU has sponsored in recent years, it’s not hard to say “the apple never falls far from the tree.”

Supreme Court Justices can change this country faster and more permanently than any hot tempered, economically ambiguous, immigrant sympathizing president. I just can’t take that risk, and neither should any other patriotic Americans.

There are tons of reasons why people think they shouldn’t vote for John McCain, but the reasons not to vote for someone else far outweigh those so-called detriments.

I was watching election coverage on Super Tuesday and realized that this country is in trouble. Admittedly, there are a lot of politicians that I don’t agree with, and there are definitely some that I think are bad for America, but nothing has perplexed and scared me more than what I have seen with “Change We Can Believe In”.

Well, obviously, the fact that Senator Obama’s campaign slogan ends in a preposition is a bit disturbing, but I am only bothered by that because the beating the English Department gave me for four years at school and the mocking that my roommate gave me my junior year. As Senator Obama was giving a speech after one of his victories was announced, I saw something that turned my stomach. As the senator was speaking, a young coed enthusiastically chanted and cheered much like some Giants fan in the last two minutes of the Super Bowl. This young lady was so moved that by the end of Senator Obama’s speech, she was weeping. Now, I didn’t listen to his whole speech, but had I heard the 26 minute speech, I probably would have been in tears for a different reason. Listening to 26 minutes of platitudes and generalities would drive me to tears because we are living in such a critical time where IDEAS and SOLUTIONS trump such flowering speech and image. The enthusiasm that surrounds the emptiness and ignorance of the Obama campaign is beyond frightening.

I’ve been watching Senator Obama closely over the past few months. Why? Because I loose sleep over my passion for preserving this countries heritage, and I truly believe that our downfall will be the enemies from within not some exterior force. (No, Senator Obama is not an enemy of America, but certainly, some of his supporters and ideals are enemies of the values of this country.) I’ve heard all the pundits rant about Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim background, his refusal to place his hand on his heart during the National Anthem, and his radical church in Illinois, but much like Obama’s campaign; all that stuff is smoke and mirrors. One would really need to read between the lines to know what the junior senator from Illinois truly “believes in”.

First, let’s address the Muslim background thing. Maybe he went to a madrassa. Maybe he was trained in the Koran. Maybe he is secretly funneling money to Muslim extremists. But I seriously doubt it, and it doesn’t really matter. What really matters is what he has said. Why speculate when you can take the words right from his mouth? Of the hours of speeches and sound bites I have heard over the last year, there is only one thing that he has clearly communicated as policy, and that policy is to pull out of Iraq. Now, his belief is that if we set a timeline, the Iraqi government will realize that they need to shape up and lead their country. That belief alone leads me to think that he is very ignorant of the Muslim and Middle-Eastern cultures. That part of the world understands force, power, strength and resolve. Diplomacy comes from deception, manipulation and positioning. I used to work very closely with two of the top Generals who are in Iraq now. I was on General David Petraeus’s planning staff prior to the invasion of Iraq, and I used to brief Brigadier General Joe Anderson at least once a day (and he would “poke me in the eye” at least once a week) when he was my brigade commander in Mosul. So, if the American people are looking for someone to “believe in” when it comes to Iraq, I recommend Generals Petraeus and Anderson. Those are two men who actually get Iraq.

Now, the National Anthem, hand over the heart, not wearing the American flag lapel pin nonsense. That is just an indication of the lack of respect that comes with being in a younger generation. Yes, believe it or not, Senator Obama is in a younger generation compared to the other candidates. He is of a generation where the flag doesn’t mean much. I doubt Senator Obama meant to defile the flag or spit in the face of those of us who have paid so dearly to protect her, but his actions have blatantly displayed his view of “self” over nation.

You may ask: What? Are you insane? How can a little thing display such selfishness? Though Senator Obama probably didn’t lie in bed one night and say “I am more important and better than the ideas this nation was founded on”. (note that he probably would have ended his thought with a preposition.) He didn’t have to say those things to himself because he is a member of a generation and a product of a society that is self-absorbed and self-gratifying. Additionally, downplaying the importance and significance of the flag appeals to the far-left. On the surface, his political leanings may appear generous because of the “rob for the rich and give to the poor” mentality, but it is really about making yourself look good and feel good.

With the respect to the “radical” church he is affiliated with in Chicago, I am very concerned. I used to attend a church where my wife and I were the only white people, and I got to know the pastor and congregation pretty well. The church that Senator Obama attends does appear to have a pretty evangelical doctrine that focuses on the African heritage of its black members. On the surface, I have no problem with it. It’s important for people to know their heritage and present the gospel to Africa. If the African heritage and embracing “blackness” was the only issue with that church, I would fully dismiss Senator Obama’s affiliation with the church. However, the pastor of this church with the support of the congregation gave an award to honor Louis Farrakhan. I originally thought this was media spin, but I did some research, and it’s true. When I think of anti-Semitic racists, Louis Farrakhan is one of the first people who comes to mind. The man is the leader of the Nation of ISLAM and blames the Jews for everything. An example of his insanity is a statement he made on Arabic televisions, “The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they converted to Judaism.” Hello?! A so-called evangelical, gospel church honors a racist Muslim. Now, if that isn’t a telling sign, what is? So, even if Obama distances himself from Trinity United Church of Christ, he can’t shake the fact that he has been influenced by such an inconsistent Christian doctrine.

It’s really hard to say what Senator Obama’s policies will be because he won’t say. That’s not a bad campaign tactic considering most American voters are looking for an image, and don’t consider substance. What we do know is that Barack Obama was the most liberal member of congress in 2007. What that means in layman’s terms is that Senator Obama opposes capitalism, wants to impose government control over individual choice, believes that your money is better spent by the government than you, opposes your right to own any kind of firearm, and is not just “pro-choice” but “pro-abortion.”
Another thing that the senator has alluded to is the idea of “universal health care.” I’ve been in the military, and experienced government administered health care. The best way I can describe what government controlled health care would look like is the DMV with scalpels. By some estimates, private medical care makes up about 15% of the United States economy. If Senator Obama (or Senator Clinton for that matter) gets his way, 15% of private jobs, businesses and services will be under control of the government. And just another fact, 57% of the money that goes toward current government health care is used for administrative costs. Could you imagine if 57% of any business costs went toward answering the phones and pushing paper? That business would fail within months.

Senator Obama is also a huge fan of taxing everyone except the poor who for some reason deserve to get money from everyone who makes more than them. Yeah, I think that is called socialism, and it reeks havoc on an economy. I didn’t grow up with money, and I’m not wealthy, but what I have always seen from my family and experienced myself is that you WORK to get ahead. If you can’t get a good job, you LEARN something that will make you more money. If you need to get back on your feet, you only get help until you can take care of yourself. You are RESPONSIBLE for your success or failure.

Additionally, Obama is against securing our borders, for reducing restrictions on narcotics, for allowing the United Nations to have a greater say in how our country is run, and for paying penalties for “global warming”.

If you scroll through the “Issues” section of his campaign webpage, you don’t get much information. He doesn’t really offer concrete solutions, but his issues all point toward more government, more taxes and less individual rights. Why is that so bad? Look at Europe. Most European countries have embraced the ideas that Obama appears to be pushing. Government control has gotten so intense in Europe that people have lost control over how long they can work, what they can eat, where they can live, how they can worship, and what they can say… Hold on. Isn’t that what we are seeing in the United States? So, the “change” Obama is looking for is already here. Shouldn’t the “change” that we are looking for be less government control, less taxation, and a stronger and more aggressive foreign policy?

The other day, I was driving into Lawton, Oklahoma, and saw a sign that read “Home of Miss American 2007 Lauren Nelson”. Now, Miss America is the ultimate in image selection, and seeing that sign reminded me of what I have been seeing in American politics. Voting for the leaders of our country is not about finding the prettiest or most presentable candidate. It’s about substance. I can look at Miss Nelson and say, “she’s just a beauty queen”, but at least she had a platform as Miss America. She wanted to protect children against internet predators, and from what I hear, she did a pretty good job of pushing her issue. But at the end of the year as Miss America, she didn’t take any money out of my pocket, and she didn’t put my life or the life of my family in danger. Barack Obama is not a beauty queen. He is a man that is running for the most powerful office in the world, and even if his platform is hard to determine through his platitudes, it is a destructive one.

The media adores him. Young people aspire to be like him. Minorities are enthralled by him. Lots of people are going to be caught up in his appeal, and the “idea” that he represents, but please don’t let people be fooled. He will change this nation, but not for the good. As president, he will appoint at least two Supreme Court Judges from 2009-2013. These judges will be the most radical and idealistic this country has ever seen. So, even if congress can stop legislation to socialize America, they probably won’t be able to stop his judicial nominations that will ultimately “rewrite” the Constitution, and alter America beyond recognition. This nation as a free prosperous country will not survive an Obama presidency.

Please vote for the values that has made this country so great not for the values that are destroying the rest of the world.