Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Obama: Dishonorable, Dishonest, Dangerous

According to Merriam Webster' Online Dictionary, the word "Honor" denotes "a keen sense of ethical conduct; integrity."

[Scroll down to read a repost from my Hillary Supporters site about the decline and fall of the Democratic Party. Bulletin: Rasmussen: McCain Trusted More Than Obama On 9 Out of 14 Electoral Issues]

"Hubris," on the other hand, denotes "exaggerated pride or self confidence," stemming from Classical Athenian usage meaning "intentional use of violence to humiliate or degrade; [it] could also characterize rape."

And this, in a nutshell, is what the 2008 presidential campaign boils down to:
The choice is between a man [McCain] whose actions and words have consistently demonstrated his honorable character and one [Obama] whose short history has demonstrated little more than his complete and utter hubris.

Contrast, if you will, the man who declined to be released from POW camp simply because he had family ties in upper echelon military, with one who refused to visit wounded troops because a press entourage was not allowed, claimed that the Senate Banking Committee [on which he’s not a member] was "his committee," and has been unable to produce an authentic, verifiable American birth certificate.

Contrast a man willing to appear at a Town Hall Meeting at a military base with one who always claims, regardless of the choice of dates given to him, that he "has a prior commitment."

It is all too well known that Mr. Obama's chief campaign strategy has been that of playing the Victim by repeatedly race baiting while accusing the Clintons, long time uber champions of civil rights, of racism.

This is indeed a clear pattern with the Obama campaign: crying foul while committing fouls themselves, as reported on by Politico last month in an article entitled "Who’s Smearing Whom."
Few things are more universally unattractive than the kind of smug, out-of-touch arrogance that characterizes Barack Obama and thus, his campaign.

Few things are sadder or more dangerous than someone who has demonstrated beyond all doubt, in instance after instance, by his outright lies, repeated failure to keep his word, and who, to date, has failed to produce an authentic birth certificate, thus raising questions about even his LEGAL qualification to run for the presidency of the United States.

Clearly, his candidacy is no longer viable and due to his pathological pattern of falsifying documents he should be censured and have his Senate seat stripped from him.

Are these the acts of a desperate man? Perhaps so, but, more importantly, they are the acts of one who is inexperienced, unqualified and dangerous.

For further reading see Jerome Corsi's #1 bestseller “The Obama Nation” book and Andy Martin's, "Obama: The Man Behind the Mask"


Hillary would be shunned by "her" Party if she came out against Obama. Many years ago John F. Kennedy wrote a book (with Ted Sorensen) called "Profiles in Courage." I want HRC and WJC to earn a place in such a future book. My argument has always been that there the Party of FDR, JFK, and HST does not exist anymore.

Of course, Harry Truman knew that by going into Korea to stop the North's invasion that he would be vilified and probably could not win re-election in 1952, by which time not 4,000 American had been killed, but rather 50,000.In 1952, Truman's "approval rating" was much lower than Bush's is now. The nuns at my elementary schools made an (unprecedented) announcement that President Truman would not run again.

As for Roosevelt, he came near to risking impeachmnet by going against Congress to assist Great Britain prior to Pearl Harbor. It is now the Party of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, Robert Casey, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, and Barack H. Obama.

There is not some other idealized, Platonic, and democratic Party that exists apart from such people. Right now, it is able to do harm -- as in blocking any sort of decent energy policy -- but it is not yet able to dominate every aspect of American society. That will of course change if Barack H. Obama is elected President and then of course re-elected by an increasingly dependent society in 2012.

"I would rather lose an election than lose a war." (John McCain) I believe there some Democrats -- Mary Landieu of La is one, Joe Lieberman of CT is another, and James Boren of OK is a third -- who would say something similar (not on the War perhaps but on anything), yet there are not enough.

Some of my dear friends in Beaver County (pro-life, pro-God, pro-guns, the ones Obama despises) are preparing to vote for a candidate because he -- Obama -- is "the Democrat." They persist in the illusion that the Party of JFK still exists. It doesn't, and it shows no signs of reappearing.

No comments: