The Inconvenient Truth about Mumbai

It’s been a sad week for Mumbai, a sad week for the families of the innocents who died simply because they were there and were who they were, a sad week for the Republic of India, and a sad week – once again – to be Jewish. What a Chabad rabbi did or could have done to deserve a raid by bloodthirsty terrorists in Mumbai is beyond my comprehension. It simply doesn’t compute…unless you remember who is responsible for the attacks. Know this: Whosoever argues that these attacks could possibly have any justification whatsoever is blind to the realities of the world we live in. Nothing can justify this terror, this utter madness.

These terror attacks are an affront to humanity, but sadly, are also representative of the depths of depravity to which humans can sink to. After all, those who planned and carried out the attacks are not superhuman monsters…they are all too human monsters, with human frailties, human interests, and human motives. No high-minded individual or ideology should countenance such evil; no high-minded ideology, be it political, religious or an amalgam of the two, should be allowed to call itself high-minded when such lowly violence is its calling card.

And yes, folks, equivocate all you like, but events in Mumbai over the past 48 hours were and are acts of evil, perpetrated against tourists and Indians alike. If your only “direct” experience of terrorism was 9/11 or some similar great event such as the Madrid or London bombings, perhaps the horror of the Mumbai attacks doesn’t faze you as much as it should. But for those who have lived with the threat of random acts of politically- or religiously-motivated violence, directed primarily at innocent civilians, little is left to the imagination. The fear, the uncertainty, the calm before the storm…and then, a bomber strikes a falafel stand in Tel Aviv (like I could forget that sound), a bus explodes in Jerusalem, or gunmen seize hotels and places of worship and congregation in India, killing scores of people whose only crime was – in the eyes of the terrorists – being amongst the living!

This is why Jews in America overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the late election, but polls in Israel show that the right-wing Likud party’s Benjamin Netanyahu has a strong chance of victory in Israel’s upcoming general election, scheduled for early next year. American Jews can empathize with their Israeli cousins in the Promised Land, but the daily experience of the former is too far removed from that of the latter. Sure, Jews in America see security at synagogues during the High Holidays, but that security presence is only there because the reality of daily life in Israel demonstrates that even now, over six decades since the end of the Holocaust, Jews are still tempting targets for the homicidally-inclined of certain faiths, ideologies and/or ethnicities, wherever they (Jews) are. And, if anyone happened to forget that fact, the takeover of the Chabad House in Mumbai by Islamic terrorists – Jews were singled out, amidst the targeted hotels and tourist spots – serves as a chilling, tragic reminder of that inconvenient truth.

My point?

We the People of the United States have chosen as the next Chief Executive of our Federal Government a man who has expressed few qualms about meeting with those of other governments who directly finance and otherwise support those who organize and carry out such heinous acts of Islamic terrorism as have been occurring presently in India. My fellow Americans, relatively insulated from terrorism as they are – compared to those of other countries – can maybe be forgiven for feeling safe enough to vote into office one with such a stated agenda, but they should be prepared to possibly reap what they have sown, and I – who voluntarily abandoned that insulation, experiencing first-hand in Israel, as an Israeli, what most Americans (who don’t hold passports) can barely contemplate as daily life – will be amongst the first to say “I told you so,” if and when the thinkable (how can it be “the unthinkable,” when it presents itself so often?) comes to pass. God forbid that should happen, but then…what God does and doesn’t forbid to happen isn’t up to us.

My prayers go out to all those who were murdered in these attacks. They were not killed by Islamic “militants”, but by Islamic terrorists. Let us remember that. Let that sink in. Save the political correctness for another day; spare me the apologists’ excuses. As the Foreign Minister of Israel said just a short time ago, “Our world is under attack, and it doesn’t matter if it’s in India or somewhere else. Only when things like this happen do we understand that we are partners in the same battle.” But I digress…and so now in closing, I say to the Republic of India, to Chabad, to my fellow Jews, Israelis and Americans, and to all the other friends, families and countrymen of all the innocents and members of the Indian security forces fighting against the terrorists who lost their lives in Mumbai,

“May the Almighty comfort you amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”

A Silver Lining

Though I personally was quite disappointed with the result of the late election, that the United States have elected a black president before England could bring itself to elect a black prime minister, or France a black president or PM, says a lot about us…in a good way! I’ll never forget all the times I personally had to fend off attacks on America’s character from Europeans, mostly French. (Hey, if I still harbor resentment from having been literally dumped, thrown out, onto the streets of Paris, forgive me. It is true, memories die hard).

While I’m not, politically, happy with Obama’s election, there’s a certain sweetness I taste, knowing for all the Europeans’ pretend open-mindedness, their feigned enlightenment, this couldn’t yet happen…over there. Why? Well, Europe doesn’t have the best record on tolerance, does it? Much worse than ours, when history is considered soberly.

Mind you, I feel that millions of blacks having voted for Obama because he’s black – well, strictly speaking, mulatto – does little to change the dynamics of “race politics” in the United States. Their doing that – and whites voting for him, just to show how racist they aren’t – goes against Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision for America, which I happen to like. Our having a black President might change America’s image abroad, but it won’t – easily, or cleanly, at least – change America itself, not as profoundly as liberals think it might.

The deep economic divisions between whites and blacks, shattered black families, deadbeat dads and the like, all the stereotypes and crime rates won’t magically be fixed on Inauguration Day, 2009. Sorry, Black America; sorry, liberals…wishful thinking won’t make it so. We’re human. We ain’t perfect. We’re America. Those things weren’t just the product of one skin color victimizing another, or the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer. It’s more complicated than that. All sides are at fault.

Barack Hussein Obama’s election hasn’t changed my mind that if you’re male, if you call your women bitches and hoes, and you wear your jeans so low you expose your underwear, you deserve to be judged a certain, harsh way. It’s my right to have and share such an opinion. If it makes me sound racist, know that I’m not; it’s not my fault, though, that a majority of such people happen to be of a certain skin color. They choose, freely, to act that way; I choose, freely, to look down upon them because they do.

Still, let there be no doubt in your mind that Barack Hussein Obama being elected President of the United States of America gives every patriotic American ammo in the rhetorical defense of his or her country. No law, thank God, says we have to love our President. But we can use him. Yes we can. So I intend to make the most of it, make the next four years “worth it,” whatever happens to the American Republic, for better or worse, while President Barack H. Obama heads the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government.

Remember, he’s a symbol, sure, but a President’s only a President. Obama’s not about to be crowned a King. He’s not a Savior. And, until January 20, 2009, he’s only President-elect Obama. So don’t get ahead of yourselves, liberal Democrats, and don’t lose hope, conservative Republicans. Why? Well, for all the jubilant media predictions that it would be, the Senate isn’t filibuster-proof.

Thank God for that.

This means that there’s a very good chance that a couple years from now, America will still be America. In more ways than you think. I don’t know about you, but for me…that’s a comforting thought. If that doesn’t work, then consider this: 2010’s midterm elections in the United States are only a couple of years away.

God Bless America.

Liberty, or a Tyranny of the Majority?

James Madison, arguing on behalf of the Constitution (that he himself authored) in the Federalist #10, warned that there were two methods of curing “faction” (partisanship) in a republic; either by removing its causes, or by controlling its effects. As to how to remove the “causes of faction,” Madison noted this can be achieved either by “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence”, or “by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

But as Madison – certainly by his own words no fan of partisanship – noted, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

And as to the feasibility of fostering universal opinions, “The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise,” since “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, differing opinions will be formed.”

What exactly does Barack Obama mean by being President of a “post-partisan” America? I mean, looking at the facts, Obama has one of the most partisan records in the United States’ Senate. As Senator McCain has noted, “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.” Do voters think Obama will just stop being left-wing if and when he becomes President? Up until now, Sen. Obama hasn’t been able to rise above his runaway ambition, and he hasn’t been able to rise above partisanship. Suddenly, he’ll Change…himself?

Perhaps he intends to either “abolish liberty” with the help of a liberal supermajority in Congress, or with the help of his activists nationwide, he’ll “give to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Whose opinions, whose passions, whose interests, you wonder? Those of modern “liberalism”, of course. It is already well-known that liberals would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated; they’re in favor of “net neutrality” measures. This is code, mind you, for information regulation.

With newspapers in droves declaring themselves openly for Obama, and most major news networks and news anchors holding pretty steadily to a liberal line, it will be difficult for an ordinary, free-thinking citizen to get unbiased news about an Obama Administration, under it. And if the liberals have their way, the success of conservative talk radio will be challenged, and dissenting opinions – those opposed to the left-wing liberal agenda – will slowly but surely be repressed, even silenced. Debate will be stifled.

Is this the sort of “Change” that America is in for? I certainly hope not, because if it is, then we will no longer be the sort of Republic the Founding Fathers wished for the United States to be.

In his great and celebrated work, Democracy in America, written and published following a tour of the U.S. in the early 1800s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the danger American democracy would face from a “tyranny of the majority”. We could very well see such a tyrannical majority’s ascendance in the near future; since when have Americans celebrated any sort of tyranny?

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

What the Past Demands of Our Future

Thank goodness America was founded by the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, instead of personalities such as Barack Obama, Michael Moore, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. A national project begun by the former group has lasted more than 232 years; a national project begun by the latter group would take us down the path of the Soviet Union (i.e., to ruin). There is a difference between those who are stubborn in the defense of liberty, and those who are stubborn in defense of ideology. Again, with this in mind, thank goodness for the former group and beware the latter.

Shall we go the way of France, where for a good number of years – until the ascendance of Nicolas Sarkozy to the French presidency – being financially successful was an indictment of your character, rather than a testament to your work ethic or saving abilities? If this is your fervent wish, then by all means, vote Obama and his power-mad Democrat idealogues into power. If, however, you recognize the benefits of competition, and earning money rather than simply having it handed to you by your Government, you should vote differently.

Shall we go the way of Britain, which has trouble distinguishing right from wrong – and fighting for right against wrong – due to a cultural unwillingness to do so? If you wish to further confuse our already muddled grasp of moral clarity, then please – vote for Obama. But if you don’t wish to see our moral compass go the way of the dodo, I’ll urge you to vote for McCain.

Perhaps Russia should be our model for the future? Who needs a free press anyway? Let’s criminalize certain forms of opinion. Heck, let’s criminalize HAVING your own opinion, period (unless it parrots the government’s authoritarian line). Certain things should just not be said. And if they ARE said, they should land you in jail. Then again, perhaps giving illiberal liberal “fascists” the power to enact such policies in America would be a bad thing…

You know what? I think our success in the future depends on us remaining America…and American. Rather than adopt foreign nations’ policies as our own, without consideration for the consequences or whether or not said policies “fit” us and/or our system, why don’t we take inspiration from what is obviously good, and see if we can adapt it to our own unique circumstances? If not, oh well. There’s nothing wrong, or un-American, about doing that. After all, that’s what the Founders did.

No one should be so naive as to think that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America invented republicanism, democracy or the concepts of political freedom and personal liberty all on their own. They looked to the example of the Roman Republic, the writings of Enlightenment thinkers in Europe, and yes, to the Bible, to inspire and guide them. The Founders were more progressive in their own day – even, often, while owning slaves – than any so-called “liberal” who today would shackle our future (by default) and hinder our freedom via unchecked Government expansion.

Yes, thank goodness – thank God – for men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. They would see the folly of Obama, Moore, Gore and Clinton for what it is. And given the choices, the Founders would urge us to remain American, against all other foreign notions and temptations. The foolish would spurn their advice, but the wise would embrace it; who, after all, can seriously argue with 232 years of imperfect yet undeniable success?

Culture War: Americanism vs. Obamunism

Left-wing policies were not at the heart of the American Revolution. They did not guide those who drafted the Constitution. Today’s self-proclaimed “progressives” pale in comparison to the progressiveness of the Founding Fathers of this, our Union. Undoubtedly, as we see them from today, they were backwards in many of their views, particularly regarding slavery (but then, not every American Founding Father  – or Mother – was pro-slavery!). What can be reasonably expected of a Barack Obama presidency, given his sparse but utterly left-wing, illiberal and partisan record in the Senate of these United States, will be a further abrogation of America’s founding morals, ideals, values and principles; in short, with the current species of Democrats ascending to the White House, we could expect a further de-Americanization of America.

Mark my words: Decades will be needed to repair the damage likely to be inflicted upon America by any Obama Administration.

Take note of Obama’s skin color, if you like, but it is of very little concern except where (and when) it provides insight into the man’s decisions. Foremost in our minds should be Sen. Obama’s politics. As was noted in a September 18 Jerusalem Post article, “according to the non-partisan National Journal, Barack Obama has the Senate’s single-most left-wing voting record. (Close behind, his running-mate, Joe Biden, comes in third. [Joe] Lieberman? A respectable 44th)“. Consider, fellow citizens, that Barack Obama hasn’t even yet served four years of a six-year freshman Senate term, and he already has earned an unnerving reputation for narrow, harmful partisanship in Washington, DC. The same, thankfully, cannot be said of Arizona Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for President who has after decades of Senate (and House) service earned himself a reputation for embracing a sometimes unpopular form of bipartisanship.

What does Barack Obama truly stand for?

We already know Democrats realize there is very little substance to their man, beyond charm and charisma. Disturbingly, this is made up for by the cultivation of a personality cult fancying Senator Barack Obama of Illinois as America’s Savior. But were he to win, he’d be only the savior of his Party. Barack Obama’s allegiance is, as shown by his Senate record, to the Democrats and Leftist Ideology, above all other considerations. His ambition, which under different circumstances and in several years’ time would possibly be commendable from an observational standpoint, demonstrates a lack of appreciation and understanding on his part about his duties to his electorate. Irresponsible vanity has shunted aside any semblance of a commitment to responsible democracy. Barack Obama is an opportunist, not a public servant…he lives to serve only his own career, and his Party’s fortunes.

Forgive me for preferring and demanding a certain level of humility from candidates seeking to become the Chief Executive of the United States’ Federal Government. What do I mean, by “a certain level of humility”? The President is our, the American people’s, employee. Unlike Obama, a humble man would build up his or her reputation by his deeds and his record instead of seeking, by rhetoric and empty promises alone, higher office before the first term of the position he was elected to concluded. Unlike Obama, a humble man would not be so…audacious…as to assume for himself symbols of the American presidency (such as when Obama sat behind a faux-seal of the President of the United States) before he has even secured his Party’s nomination. Unlike Obama, a humble man wouldn’t claim to be bipartisan when his record, if even casually examined, says quite the opposite about him; come to think of it, an honest man wouldn’t do such a thing, either.

By what standard am I to judge Senator Barack Obama? It is a safe assumption for any American citizen to make, that politicians aren’t, for the most part, to be easily or uncritically trusted. Usually, if a Senator or Governor is running for the Presidency, the American people are able to get a sense of the candidate’s honor and trustworthiness by examining his record. It is quite easy for a curious citizen to look up and see for himself a Senator’s voting record. From that record, it is quite acceptible for the curious citizen to listen to the Senator’s speeches and claims of bipartisanship, and cross-reference that with the Senator’s actual voting history and other addresses. And, it is commonsensical of the curious citizen to be wary of the promises of a candidate for high office who, if he won, would effectively be violating an oath he has taken only once, especially when we speak of one who hasn’t done much as a Senator since becoming a Senator.

I am perfectly and undeniably justified in asking my fellow citizens, publicly, this question: What has Barack Obama done for me lately? What has he done for America, lately? Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama served in the Illinois legislature. I don’t live in Illinois, so…can’t vote for him based on that. In the Senate of these States, united, he has unabashedly been a Party-line, ideological voter. I’m a Republican, who in 2000 voted Gore-Lieberman. I’m a bipartisan at heart. I’m flexible (or stubborn), when I feel “the greater good” demands it of me. Obama’s brazenly partisan. Point against him. Obama, too, was against a troop surge in Iraq that has succeeded (which even now, Obama admits). That’s another point against him, since I view success in Iraq as vitally important to our national interests. Obama is in favor of an East-West Berlin-style division of Jerusalem. I’m…well, I’m obviously not.

If you’re at all familiar with U.S. politics, you know Chicago is home to one of the most infamous and effective Democrat Party-run anti-democratic political machines in America. For decades, the city could easily have been considered a fiefdom of the Daley family. Whatever the Honorable Richard Daley wanted, he generally got – and who he wanted to be elected, he generally succeeded in getting elected. A more corrupt electoral and political process in America is difficult to imagine. His son ain’t much different, and he’s endorsed Obama. Obama currently hails from Chicago. Obama backed Daley for a re-election bid. In essence, such connections demonstrate that Senator Obama is representative of the sort of self-serving, ambitious and narrow-minded politics Americans should be fearful of, rather than hopeful about. Barack Obama is, thus, exactly the sort of politician the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to protect us – and our system – from.

Barack Obama says its time to change America, but we changed long before he came on the scene. We’ve evolved so much, in fact, in the 232 years since the issuance of the Declaration of Independence that in 2008 it was possible for an American of African descent to seriously seek out and win a major political Party’s presidential nomination. No, it isn’t time to change America into an Obamunist state. Where change is needed most is not on the West Coast, or in the South, or in the Midwest, but in Washington, DC. It’s time to change the status quo in how the Nation’s business is conducted in the District of Columbia. Obama is not qualified to bring such change, nor does he have a track record in challenging the status quo or breaking with members of his ideological Party for the good of the country. Obama wants America to follow his vision, not that of the Founding Fathers, who were far more “progressive” than any modern progressives claim to be.

We need a President who accepts and loves America for what it is, but nevertheless sees room for improvement and reform in Washington. We need a President who understands that growing the size and power of the Federal Government will not solve America’s problems, but exacerbate them. We need a President who can be judged by his deeds, by his record of service to his country, not simply by nice-sounding rhetoric and empty promises. We need a President who is loyal to his country and to his people first, not his Party. We need a President who will work for the American people, not look down upon them. We need a President who is humble before God, and His children. And unfortunately, Senator Barack Obama can’t be, won’t be, doesn’t want to be, that sort of President. His ideology, his Party, won’t allow him to be.

And on that note…God Save Our American States! God Bless Our American Union!

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!

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 of ours is clear. That choice is between 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 they care more about their ideology’s interests than their country’s. Anyone taking a glance at Obama’s time in office, who buys into his BS that he’ll bring America together, will be disappointed with his penchant for being one of the most left-wing, partisan Senators serving that body right now. And he’s not even finished his first term! However, looking at the record of the GOP candidates, the bipartisan McCain and Alaska Gov. Palin, they often take the maverick course against the Party faithful’s wishes. Not always a bad thing.

Believe it or not, 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. Barack Obama, for all his rhetorical finery, is a politician’s politician. He keeps his cards close to the chest, revealing little of what he really feels. 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. 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.

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’s different, ain’t it?