LOS ANGELES, Aug. 28 /Christian Newswire/ — On Wednesday the Democratic Party made it official by nominating Sen. Barack Obama as their presidential candidate. Barack Obama is scheduled to give his formal acceptance speech tonight. His address coincides with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. Radio talk show host and social commentator Rev.Jesse Lee Peterson says no amount of phony Hollywood theatrics can hide the fact that Sen. Obama’s agenda is a continuation of left- wing policies, which have turned Dr. King’s dream into a nightmare for Black Americans.
“Ninety percent of Black Americans support Sen. Obama. Millions are caught up with his celebrity status, but we must take a step back and look at the real Barack Obama,” said Rev. Peterson. Here’s a sample of what an Obama administration won’t do for Black America:
“Barack Obama wants to be king, but clearly he is no King. Obama’s ideas and policies are a nightmare for all Americans,” said Rev. Peterson.
BOND Action, Inc. is a 501 (c) (4) new cultural action organization. If you strongly believe in the family, traditional moral values, and positive, honest race relations, we are asking you to become a member of BOND Action, Inc. We need your physical, spiritual, and financial support as we work together to stand up for our families, our communities, and our great nation. Donations to BOND Action, Inc. are not deductible for tax purposes.
by Armstrong Williams
Senator Ted Kennedy’s appearance the first night of the Democrat National Convention was nothing short of miraculous. He appeared strong and spoke with clarity and conviction, an amazing feat for someone who had just two months ago undergone radical brain surgery. It is a testament to both his belief in Senator Obama and his commitment to a vision for this country that he rose from his deathbed and traveled over a thousand miles to speak at the opening night of the Convention.
Michelle Obama did exactly what was expected of her and beyond. Her words demonstrated the strongest of commitments to family and faith. It was clear in the speech that the Michelle Obama of fifteen years ago has evolved into someone who loves America , and is as patriotic to our ideals and principles as anyone on the political stage. In fact, without Michelle Obama and Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democrats would have wasted the evening.
With that said, there are some cold facts that Sen. Barack Obama and the Democrats need to face. The candidates are in a statistical dead heat. The selection of Joe Biden as a running mate did not give Barack Obama the bounce he was expecting. Nor does anyone expect Biden to bring any state (other than his small home state of Delaware ) to Barack Obama’s winning column. A year ago the American people were ready to impeach Bush over the war in Iraq , and now, incredulously, Senator John McCain is pursuing the war and his role in promoting it as an asset instead of a liability. Several months ago, fuel prices reached record highs, and are still hovering astronomically. The current mortgage crisis happened on the President’s watch, and thousands of people are losing their homes; and yet, despite siding overwhelmingly with President Bush on what have been characterized by Democrats as failed policies, Senator McCain is still in a dead heat with Senator Barack Obama.
Overshadowing Senator Obama’s crowning moment was an unresolved tension with the Clintons . Having maligned his ability and character during the primary, they provided ample fodder for the McCain campaign, which consistently features her attacks against Obama in their own television advertisements. Curiously absent from Senator Clinton’s speech on Tuesday night was any mention of Barack Obama’s fitness or ability to lead this country going forward. To make matters worse, on Tuesday, President Bill Clinton posed a hypothetical question, which seemed to suggest that electing Senator Obama would lead to a complete loss, while electing McCain would at least provide a modest gain.
However, they don’t call President Clinton the best politician of his generation for nothing, and he showed why on Wednesday night; delivering both the strongest endorsement of Senator Obama and the most stinging rebuke of Bush and McCain heard thus far at the Democratic convention. President Clinton was at the top of his game; even to the point of one-upping his wife’s speech of the night before. The words that come to mind when considering his remarks are; smart, effective, convincing and winning.
What seemed at first a spineless capitulation to the Clintons ’ outrageous demands by allowing them to control two nights at the convention, now appears to have been a brilliantly executed strategy to turn the Clinton ’s anger, frustration and naked ambition into energy Senator Obama can use to propel himself to the Presidency. No matter what the Clintons do from here on, whether they snipe and hedge, or obstruct and bother, the fact remains that they not only threw their support unreservedly behind Obama, they, as a team, clearly spelled out what makes Obama the most qualified candidate to lead this country. President Clinton effectively accomplished this by comparing criticisms of Obama to his own candidacy in 1992 (we all knew he would talk about himself), in which he was roundly dismissed as too young and inexperienced to lead the country. President Clinton thus rhetorically turned youth and inexperience into an asset rather than an impediment to Obama’s hopes for high office.
If nothing else, the events of this week provided the catharsis among her voters that Senator Clinton wanted. It was evident from the tears, cheers and jeers that poured freely from delegations that the Democratic Party has come together finally; the divisions seem to have been healed, at least for now. By capitalizing on the Clintons’ ambitions, and giving them time to shine, Obama conquered his enemies by turning them into allies; and in the process demonstrated that while he might be on the ropes, he is certainly no dope.
By Herman Cain
If not knowing how many houses your family owns is being an elitist, then the amount of attention John McCain got from the media over this memory lapse is bull-feathers. This is just another chapter in the mainstream media’s class-warfare playbook.
Fortunately for the John McCain presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate will dominate the weekend news, and the Democratic National Convention this week in Denver will feed the political junkies right up to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul next week.
The real attention to elitism should be a U.S. senator’s selection of another U.S. senator as his vice-presidential running mate. An Obama/Biden ticket is no JFK/LBJ combination of 1960. If John McCain also selects a U.S. senator as his running mate, then the inside-the-Beltway mentality will be the political equivalent of the Great Wall of China.
Instead of keeping our enemies out, four U.S. senators seeking to run the country would make it harder for the will of the people to find its way in. You see, the U.S. Senate has long been viewed as an elite club. John McCain has been there for more than 20 years and Joe Biden for more than 30 years.
But McCain has not revealed his choice for VP yet, so let’s wait and see. I may have to write about McCain’s choice next week. Let’s hope not.
The real elites are not people who can not remember how many houses they own, but the people who share Obama’s and Biden’s views for more taxes on the rich, bigger government, socialized health care in the U.S. and windfall profit taxes on big corporations that make money.
The last time I attended one of the three corporate boards on which I serve, thankfully, the objective of making money had not changed. If it had changed, then where would the government get more than $1 trillion a year to spend and redistribute?
The answer: Borrow more from the Chinese and other countries by selling more U.S. Treasury notes. This is a big part of our nation’s economic problems, and a growing threat to our national security.
Class envy is the desire to have what someone else has without working for it. Class jealousy is wishing someone else did not have what they own, because you are not about to work that hard. Class warfare is consistently feeding the flames of envy and jealousy, which is a classical Democratic election theme that plays well to a lot of people.
Look for a lot of that rhetoric at the DNC. Count on it.
The class warfare grenade lobbed at John McCain started when the media wanted his wife, Cindy McCain, to release her tax returns. To her credit, she released them in order to avoid a distraction for her husband’s presidential campaign.
The media then confirmed that Cindy McCain and, thus, John McCain are “rich”. Woo hoo! Now they are counting houses.
If any of John McCain’s staff is reading this article, please give him a cheat sheet on the price of a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs. I know those questions are coming, because they are in the earlier chapters of the class warfare playbook.
Of course, the major mainstream media outlets will want you to think that John McCain is out of touch with the mainstream public by not immediately knowing the answers to those questions and remembering how many houses his family owns. But what it really shows is how some reporters are out of touch with most people’s common sense.
They think we are stupid, but not that stupid.
© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
By Ceasar I. LeFlore III
Shame on Bishop Charles Blake!
Just when he got a good bucket of milk for having the courage to speak up as a pro-life Democrat during the inaugural Interfaith Gathering at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this past Sunday; Bishop Blake immediately kicked it over by casting unwarranted aspersions on the motives and sincerity of many good people who have at great personal cost bravely championed the sanctity of human life issue by speaking out against 1.5 million abortions performed annually in the United States.
Shame on you, Bishop Blake! Why would you choose to break the uncomfortable gaze of Democrats who build their political lives around protecting the non-right (given by a court) to kill children in the womb by throwing well meaning people under the bus simply because they (unlike your audience) believe that unborn children have a real right to life (given by God) that must be defended?
As the keynote speaker for Faith in Action’s effort to cast the Democrats as a party of faith; Bishop Charles Blake, presiding prelate of the six million member Church of God in Christ, received tepid applause and raised eyebrows from the crowd when he unequivocally identified himself as one of the pro-life Democrats (they really do exist) who was not comfortable with the party’s position on this important moral issue.
Blake said that, as “a pro-life Democrat,” he doesn’t believe anyone could be pleased with those who use it (abortion) routinely as birth control. “Something within us must be calling for a better way,” Blake said. “If we do not resist at this point, at what point can we resist.”
Watching from the sofa in the family room of my suburban Chicago home; I raised my hands and praised God that my Bishop (I’m an ordained elder in his church) had the courage to face the lions in their den and speak the heart of God on the abortion issue. To my disappointment, that courage soon revealed itself as limited, as the Bishop jumped quickly away from how unacceptable abortion is and back onto the DNC talking points.
Recognizing the risk of being scorned for being sympathetic to a cause usually identified with the religious right, Blake wrote himself an out in his presentation that quickly moved the focus of blame from the democrats for their complicacy in the killing of over 40 millions innocents in the womb by accusing conservatives (even though he didn’t directly mention them) of offering only bluster that did not reflect a sincere concern for those outside of the womb. As expected, the crowd erupted in applause when Bishop Blake declared that “others were silent and maybe even indifferent to the suffering of the inner city”; a show of exuberant appreciation that proved that he had gotten them back to where they were most comfortable as it concerns abortion – unrepentant.
Blake went on to contend that even though he was pro-life, he was still a loyal Democrat because Democrats champion the right issues and he agrees more with their platform.
Bishop, I’m wondering just how much of that platform you have actually read; and how do you get around those tremendous moral issues (like abortion) that have distinguished the Democrats as the party that promotes the type of social liberalism that leads to national moral decline.
“How can two walk together except they be agreed?”
Bishop, do you agree with the Democrats’ new language on gay rights that say:
We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.
I would think that the Bishop would not be in agreement with this statement but would stand more in agreement with Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. who wrote in the Sept/Oct issue of Freedoms Journal Magazine:
“The natural family consist of man, woman, and the children they produce. The family is not a political or sociological construct but a natural structure defined and imbued with natural law. That is to say, family is an institution first endowed by God, then written on the heart of man, and demonstrated worldwide.
Jesus is quoting Genesis when he says, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5“and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Bishop, do you agree with the Democrats’ position on abortion that says:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
Bishop, did you notice the line that says “regardless of ability to pay” as it pertains to a woman’s right to abortion. Does it not trouble you that your party supports giving over 350 million dollars a year in tax dollars to an organization like Planned Parenthood that uses that money to deceive our children with safe sex lies that consistently leads them to become victims of the nations leading abortion provider. And by the way, most of Planned Parenthood abortion services, percentage wise, are directed towards blacks.
I’m sure the Bishop and those who think like him would counter by saying that they support the Democratic social justice issues that the cold hearted, money grubbing Republicans are too unloving and self absorbed to address. When he looks around his neighborhood in south central L.A. he sees crime, poverty, and people locked in hopeless situations. To people like Bishop Blake, the promise to fix those problems (it never happens) is a sign that the Democrats care about the real issues that are affecting real people.
Does Bishop Blake believe and teach the six million followers of his international church that the only way to demonstrate a caring heart is by excusing people for irresponsible behavior and rescuing them from the consequences that usually follows? Does he really believe that our righteousness is measured by how we attempt to relieve people from the consequences of disobedience and poor judgment that God may be using to hold them accountable for themselves and instruct them towards better behavior?
The Bible command to bear each other’s burdens should never be confused with a mandate for governmental interventions that subsidize immoral and irresponsible behavior under the guise of caring for those we label as less fortunate. For too long Democrats have attempted to measure how much people care about the inner city by the amount of tax dollars we’re willing to throw at their problems, and not by promoting the ideals of self responsibility and morality that it will take to uplift those communities. When will it become uncaring to cripple generation after generation of people through the unintended consequences of liberalism that undervalues our individual need and responsibility to carry our own load?
Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load. Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galatians 6:2-7
Bishop Blake, conservatives do have the capacity to love those in the womb as well as those outside the womb who are living in the tough environments of the inner city. We, like you want to see them live full and productive lives, glorifying God by living up to the potential He has placed in each one of us and benefiting from all the wonderful things this country has to offer. We just don’t believe that a government or a political party has the answers that will make a difference; and it does not demonstrate caring when people keep getting elected by pretending they do.
By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
I want to publicly thank Pastor Rick Warren for taking the risk to be a voice to this generation. He will undoubtedly go down in this age as the Billy Graham of the 21st century. Criticized for his stances and accused of compromise, he has taken the role of being America’s pastor to a new level. Warren served the nation by bringing Senator Obama and Senator McCain into the same room, while allowing them to show who they are. The concept was excellent and it was brilliantly executed.
Surprisingly, Warren restored a sense of impartiality to the faith discussion; he did not come off like a biased Democrat or Republican. Despite the Time Magazine picture, which showed him holding hands with Senator Obama, he acted like America’s pastor. Although, he did not take sides, he exposed what “side” the candidates were really on - by asking truly tough questions.
Last weekend John McCain won the religious “discussion” at Saddleback, hands down. All the pundits reluctantly admitted that McCain found his environment [the town hall forum) and his message (pro-life and pro-family). While on the surface many people thought that Obama had the most to win from the discussion with Rick Warren, McCain emerged with the “gold medal.”
Both candidates should adjust their campaign strategies based upon their desire to reach the ultimate swing vote – 60 million evangelical voters. Obama lost the discussion because his nuance answers seemed “too careful” and in some cases dishonest. He of all people should have recognized that we live in a sound bite generation that cannot evaluate subtleties in theology or public policy. If I were advising the Obama campaign, I would tell him to emphasize the true common ground that he has with all believers. Although Pastor Warren would not let him sidestep abortion and gay marriage issues, Obama did not sell the passion of his beliefs or the inherent “goodness and correctness” of his worldview. His appearance seemed more like a very smooth version of damage control than a clear declaration of how his liberal Christian views would benefit the nation. He sounded like the law professor instead of the “cultural preacher” that he often appears to be. As a result, many strict evangelicals who were thinking about voting for Obama changed their minds. Although I don’t agree with Obama’s theology, I believe that he would gain more ground among conservatives by projecting a clearer vision of how his faith will impact the nation.
At Saddleback, McCain answered questions that many evangelicals have been asking for months. He started to excite the evangelical base and show them they have a clear choice in this election. Prior to the Saddleback Forum, many preachers and leaders had privately expressed to me that they and their followers were not “excited “about either candidate. Knowledgeable observers knew that without an energized base, McCain would definitely lose the election because of low voter turnout and apathetic evangelical turnout.
McCain has been given an unexpected advantage in the race. I want to give him three pieces of advice that will help him continue to the momentum that he has achieved.
First of all, he should weave his positive, faith message into everything he does. He does not have to pander or compromise himself in any way. All he needs to do is to continue to affirm his pro-marriage amendment stance and his pro-life commitment. After all, gay activists and NARAL members are not likely to vote for him anyway.
Unfortunately for Camp McCain, huge numbers of the evangelical community became wary of him during the Pastor Hagee and Pastor Parsley debacles. After pursuing these pulpit luminaries, his denunciation of them created a secondhand offense within the hearts of millions of their supporters.
To add insult to injury, both of these pastors have large numbers of politically active partners who have long memories. They have assumed that McCain’s original faith outreach was tainted by opportunism, and they may assume the same about the Saddleback Forum. Therefore, he must repeat, repeat, and repeat his social conservative message. If McCain is not committed to talking about his faith in the future, he needs to add an evangelical-friendly vice president to the ticket.
Secondly, he must keep presenting his positive vision for the nation. All conservatives want to hear is a clear message that addresses the concerns of the three major branches of the movement- social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. I view energy policy, immigration reform and our defense against radical Islam as three major issues that will define America for the next few decades. McCain can offer genuine leadership in all three of these areas. Articulating clear vision in these matters will help him immensely.
His energy policies are especially strong. Contrary to the propaganda of his opponents, he has a very comprehensive vision of the energy puzzle. He will expand domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production, which will lessen energy speculation and bring down the cost of energy in both the short and long term. He also supports expanding consumer choices of alternative-fuel vehicles, as well as smarter conservation and development of all alternative energy sources, including nuclear power. In the short term, energy policies will accelerate or retard our economic comeback during the next two years.
Thirdly, Senator McCain must choose an appropriate running mate because of the public’s concern about his age. At the tender age of 72, he needs to reassure evangelicals and others that his VP will continue his vision. If McCain chooses a pro-abortion running mate, he will simply give the election to Obama. He cannot afford to deflate the base that is just starting to rally to his call.
I am hoping that McCain will capitalize on his win two weekends ago and choose wisely in the days ahead. Go for the gold, Senator McCain!
By Star Parker
Certainly we’ve not heard the last about the John Edwards scandal. Despite the former presidential candidate’s public statements of remorse, there remains far too much that doesn’t add up.
For instance, we’re being asked to swallow a bizarre story that a member of his campaign staff is the father of Edwards’ mistress’s child. Either John Edwards is not done lying to us or we don’t fully appreciate the scope of the behind-the-scenes moral depravity of his self-righteous campaign.
Let’s assume for the moment that no legal infractions occurred and that Edwards’ lapses were exclusively moral. What is the relevance of this behavior to his qualifications as a political leader and possible president?
Scandals in the private lives of politicians are, sadly, hardly rare. There is a line of reasoning that suggests it’s prudish to see them as relevant to the man’s fitness for his job.
As put in a recent op-ed by a university journalism professor: “history is full of courageous leaders who in their private lives were terrible and abusive spouses and parents — depressives, drunks, bullies. Individuals have a way of partitioning their lives, handling one set of duties commendably and another abysmally.”
I would argue that for liberals, typified by John Edwards, such partitioning of private from the public is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Why? Because to be this kind of liberal you’ve got to stand traditional morality on its head.
Traditional morality is a bottom-up process. It starts at the individual level. The Ten Commandments are addressed to “thou,” not “We the People.” It begins with individuals taking personal responsibility for the moral tone of their own lives and the social reality that results is the collective product of that individual behavior.
Traditional guidelines are to love our neighbor, our brother. Not mankind. The focus is specific and individual, not vague and abstract.
But liberal politics are top-down. Despite the pretense about being driven by caring about people, unique individuals are at the end of the liberal food chain. Liberal politicians make broad pronouncements about our “social” problems and propose social engineering programs that will allegedly fix them.
Candidate John Edwards called poverty “the great moral issue of our time.” And his antidote for solving this moral crisis was massive government programs with the modest objective of eradicating poverty in 30 years.
How particular individuals who happen to be poor actually behave, which is where the real moral issues lie, is of marginal interest to this liberal mindset. Their interest is the grand solution from above that will supposedly change the condition of the poor individuals below, who are viewed as innocent bystanders in their own lives.
It never seemed to interest Edwards that Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1965, and more than 40 years and $10 trillion or so later, it accomplished nothing.
When I was on welfare, I’d deal with indifferent bureaucrats who had little interest in me personally. They were just doing a job, no different from any civil servant in the post office or the department of motor vehicles. But behind the faceless bureaucracy was a grand liberal vision. For me, it was all irrelevant. It was just a system to work to get a check.
Ironically, Edwards’ marketing of his “moral” crusade was his Two Americas pitch. Get people on board by inspiring envy, chucking the 10th commandment out the window. And use political power to finance the massive programs with other people’s money, which can be reasonably viewed as theft.
In an interview last year, Edwards was asked what he thought would most outrage Jesus about American life today. His response: “Our selfishness; … our focus on our own short-term needs.” Not only was this guy, in the midst of an adulterous affair, oblivious to his own hypocrisy. He saw himself as master of the universe, who had to lecture the rest of us about how we behave.
So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that during a campaign defined by pronouncements of morality and compassion, Edwards was being immoral and cruel to the real individuals around him and closest to him.
For liberals, individuals are footnotes to their own grand schemes and ambitions
Dear Friends,
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I’m 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don’t consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don’t believe there are ‘two Americas ‘ - but that every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they’ll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I’m concerned about the future of this great nation. I’m worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called ‘news’, thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can’t understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don’t want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It’s a privilege to do so. I’ve never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I’ll wager that most of us don’t even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I’ve hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that’s what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I’m concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don’t get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can’t explain, and calling it ‘change’.
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we’re going to change America, they say.
In what way?, I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who’s not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we’re voting for Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party’s nomination for the White House - that system’s all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system’s okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. ‘Change we can believe in’. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I’ve been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they’re voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they’re voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he’s going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he’s going to implement a lot of change.
We’ve all seen the emails about Obama’s genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let’s ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he’s a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I’ll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don’t have a clue what they’re doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I’ve spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven’t read his wife’s thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who’s lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama’s constant harping about change is that we’re in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I’ve looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I’ve made my choice.
I don’t agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what’s right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn’t simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there’s a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can’t hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama’s supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don’t care about McCain’s service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe ‘likeability’ is a higher priority for them than ‘trust’. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, ‘Enough.’ It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they’re voting for, and why.
There’s a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family’s interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who’s qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I’m voting for John McCain.
