Really, when it boils down to it, the people who make a big deal about the election of the first “African-American” president are the real racists - because they are making an issue out of the fact that there hasn’t been one before … an issue over the color of his skin. Just goes to show that there are still a whole lot of people that still haven’t started living by Dr. King’s wise words - that a man be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

And Obama’s character is where I take issue.

The United States of America is now well on its way to retreating into the annals of world history as the nation that had its time as the world’s superpower, but was brought down by the failure of education. The failure of schools to teach young people about the political history of our country and the world, and why the failed liberal policies of past leaders still won’t work. The failure to outline how the vital signs of our nation were affected by different kinds of policies (for example, the unparalleled rise in inflation under Carter, who Obama holds in unduly high regard). We can only hope that Obama’s term will be as short as Carter’s (and Hoover’s) was, and that another Ronald Reagan will rise; one who can successfully articulate conservative principles to the masses in a way that’s easy to understand. Because apparently a good orator is all people vote for these days.

Congratulations, you uneducated Americans, for electing our first Socialist president because “he sounds good.”

But as always, I trust that God is in control and knows what is best… if He has seen fit that this nation should fall, then so be it.
Romans 13:1 - “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

BUT…

Acts 4:18-20 - “So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.’”
Let us not forget that our duty of obedience is to God, first and foremost.

I want to share with you how I decide who to vote for. I vote based on what the candidates stand for (as evidenced by their voting record, their principles, and their past), and NOT on how well they perform in televised debates. I look at their answers to questions, and not just how articulate their answers are. (Unless, of course, they don’t answer the questions.)

I believe in what John McCain stands for, and his past is filled with service to his country (and reform, as a senator). On the flip side, Obama may be a good speaker, but frankly his past scares me. A person’s past is normally a pretty good indicator of their future, and Obama has done nothing to dispel the stories of his unpatriotic past.

I read a comment on a CNN.com story that really made clear to me why I think the way I do. Let me point out the three significant statements:

You have to be more than brain dead to vote for Mccain.
that bimbo that mccain selected has no experience
Mccains tactics are dirty and racial…

1. Although liberal candidates aren’t rife with personal attacks, their supporters consistently are. I don’t go around saying things like “you must be brain-dead if you support Obama,” whether I believe it or not - and I don’t hear other conservative voters doing it either.
2. Calling names? I will admit that many conservatives do similar things, but nothing so crude as “bimbo”. And for the record, I think all these nicknames that BOTH SIDES make up for the other party’s candidates are quite childish. Just call people who they are and what they go by. Please no more of this “McSame” and “B. Hussein Obama” etc. etc.
   Also, the experience issue is moot. Palin has about the same amount of experience as governor that Obama has as a senator. Incidentally, “governor” is the office Bush came from, and nobody cried “inexperience” when he ran, that I can recall.
3. McCain’s tactics might have gotten a bit dirty, but racial? Honestly? Again, a talking point of liberals. I haven’t heard John McCain mention race with the exception of (accurately) accusing Obama supporters of calling his supporters racist just because they don’t support Obama. I mean, I’m not racist at all, I’d vote for Alan Keyes in a heartbeat if he had a chance of winning.

So you know about the financial institution collapses that have been going on? Good, most people do. But if you start looking for answers and listening to many of the talking heads out there, BE CAREFUL … and pay attention to what they’re saying: that we need much heavier regulation. Sure, on the surface it sounds good (”hey, banks wouldn’t be allowed to let things get out of hand”), but so do all of the socialist talking points! Anyway, a certain person explains:

excerpt from David Frum’s Diary, 09/15 11:37 PM

To the extent that there are scandals in this crisis, they are not Wall Street scandals. They are Washington scandals - scandals in which there appear names of one Clinton-era appointee after another.

The press and the Democrats will want to present the crisis as a crisis of regulation v. deregulation. In fact, Fannie and Freddie represent exactly the kind of disastrous “public-private partnership” that Barack Obama has long advocated. - and if you think things are bad now, just wait till he gets to do for all of America what he did to Chicago.

The people who say we need MORE government intervention must be conveniently forgetting the fact that if the government hadn’t been involved in the first place, it never would have come to this. The goverment had no business supporting either bank. Just realize that the “regulations” that we need now would really involve shoving Freddie and Fannie out from under the protective umbrella of government, out into the real world, where you bear 100% of the consequences of your actions.

The people who advocate more regulations just show how unaware they are of what really went on. A select few government officials back in the day were wise enough to see trouble coming and not turn a blind eye to it … people like Peter Wallison and, you guessed it, John McCain. Yes, they knew about Fannie and Freddie’s “unusual vulnerabilities” and tried to warn people of the dangers surrounding those companies … but “few lawmakers would take action”, and “[o]ne of the reasons for this was the extraordinary power of Fannie and Freddie.” “Congress, as usual[,] knuckled under to the special interest.”

(Read the whole article.)

People, clearly this problem has been around for a while. I know of no better example, right now, of why our voices in Congress should not cater to the special interests. Why do we continue to elect those who do just that? And don’t get me wrong, this issue is on both sides of the aisle.

BE the voice of change against the establishment … MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT. Elect senators and representatives who care not for special interests and are not afraid to make the changes we need.

Vote for McCain ‘08 and let’s get some real leadership in front of the reform effort.
Say “NObama” because we want someone who will make change happen … break with the status quo … and not use smokescreens of hope and change to mask political ideas that are nothing new at all … ideas that are “tried and failed”, as it were.
And believe me when I say it is possible to break with tradition and choose the candidate this country really needs.

I’ll leave you with one last thing:

excerpt from David Frum’s Diary, 09/17 11:36 AM

By contrast, Barack Obama was accepting Fannie’s political contributions - and inviting its former CEO to head his vice presidential selection contrast.

Riddle me this - why did Charlie Gibson say tonight that Sarah Palin has proven to be a “lightning rod for questions about women and work” … but this sort of inquisition never ensued regarding Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi?

My dad forwarded me this today from work, from one of his co-workers who forwarded it to him, etc etc.
But it’s still something that people need to hear.
(I’ve revised it a good bit for accuracy and other things, but the point is still obvious and valid.)
(more…)