Saturday, August 23, 2008

Barack Obama's Job Interview

After watching the Saddleback Forum a week ago with Pastor Rick Warren questioning the two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, it became clear to me who, of the two candidates, is more decisive and has strong convictions both morally, and in regards to what is best for this nation. John McCain answered the questions posed to him quickly and concisely. Obama spent a lot of time trying to make sure all angles were covered, uttering the word "uh," trying to appease everyone by spraying verbal posies in all directions, and more often than not hardly answering the questions at all. In other words, just like the cockroaches (I mean typical politicians) before him that he claims to be nothing like, it turns out Obama is no change after all

Change (or lack thereof) is grand, isn't it?

This avoidance of answering questions seems to be a habit of Obama's. In fact, when he does finally get around to answering a question, it is either too late, or contradicts one of his previous answers. Obama is hardly the decisive man of convictions we need for the presidency of the United States.

I suppose it is safe to say that Obama "hopes" nobody notices his "change" is actually empty rhetoric, flower-power laced language, and really only something that he alone truly "believes in."

Now that McCain leads the Zogby Poll 46% to 41%, it is becoming obvious that more and more people are wising up to Barack Obama's campaign of flowers, unicorns, and bags of hot air.

In the end, it is all about character, isn't it?

When the question of Obama's birthplace arose, for example, a birth certificate was not originally produced by Barack Obama. When one did surface, the alleged birth certificate from the state of Hawaii was verified to be a forgery by three independent document forensic experts. Finally, when the volcanic eruption of questions about why he would produce a fake birth certificate and have it posted on a liberal site like the Daily KOS reached a crescendo, the Obama campaign suddenly produced an apparently legitimate birth certificate. staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed this original birth certificate, and it was concluded that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. Obama was born in the United States just as he has always said, after all.

The liberal left has chided The Right for this "birth certificate" series of questions and articles, saying "See? He's a citizen, shame on you for questioning Obama's eligibility for President."

Like usual, the liberal left misses the whole point, and those that are hanging on to the self-destructing Obama Campaign cannot understand why some of their liberal brothers and sisters are feeling buyer's remorse about Barack Obama, and are jumping ship with the rest of the rats as the Obama Feel-Good Ship Lollipop noses into the choppy seas of political campaigning.

Is questioning Obama's birthplace a smear tactic? Or is it simply the potential employers, better known as the voters, looking for verification of job qualifications before continuing to interview the job applicant? And even though a legitimate birth certificate finally surfaced, why is the character issue in regards to the whole deal so important?

Imagine, if you will, that I was applying for a job with a trucking company. I have a Class A Commercial Drivers License, and I have been driving big rigs for over eight years to transport the equipment I operate. To be hired with a new company, I would need to show my prospective employers that I have a commercial drivers license, and telling them over and over I have one without producing the card from my wallet would not be enough.

Sure, I could call them smear merchants because they refuse to believe that I have a Class A license based only on my word, but in the end, all of that stomping and crying and accusations are not going to convince them I am a licensed big rig driver.

Now, imagine that rather than handing over my original license to those that may hire me (and are already wondering what the hell I am trying to pull by not producing a license up to this point) I decided to give them a copy of my license, send it to them via the internet, and on top of that it turns out after they examine the copy that the Driver's License copy I sent them isn't a legitimate license after all, containing a number of flaws that makes it obvious to them that it is a forgery. Then, later, after being questioned about the copies, I finally produce the genuine article, and chastise them for doubting me in the first place. Should I be hired? What would those kind of antics say about my character?

Some would say that it is ridiculous that people are even challenging Obama's eligibility to be president in that way.

Aren't "We The People" the ones that are deciding whether or not to hire Obama or McCain? Isn't U.S. Birth Citizenship one of the requirements for the job?

One liberal even went as far to say that, "Doug thinks it's Obama's responsibility to rebut any whacked-the-f***-out B.S. claim from people who are doing nothing other than trying to damage his credibility and dignity."

So in the situation of trying to get a job driving a big rig the prospective employers are just trying to damage my credibility and dignity by asking me to prove I have a Class A license? And it is not my responsibility to rebut their claim by producing the genuine article? Barack Obama is applying for President of the United States and it is his responsibility to produce validation of his eligibility to his prospective employers. Simple as that.

Barack Obama has a total of 143 days of experience in the Senate before he formed his presidential campaign exploratory committee. Barack Obama has voted present more often than yea or nay in the Senate, showing his inability to take a stance on anything. Barack Obama does not answer questions directly (Saddleback was a great example of that), once again showing his indecisiveness and lack of convictions. Barack Obama has based his entire campaign, for the most part, on his opposition to the War in Iraq, and then has chosen his running mate to be Joe Biden, which originally voted to send troops into Iraq. Obama supports implementing Nationalized Healthcare, a failed system in Canada, Britain, and elsewhere, and a system that will further entitle the government to poke its nose into more facets of your life, and make you and I responsible for paying through increased taxes for the healthcare for others through a system, if it follows the same path of all other attempts at this, will be bankrupt and worthless down the road. Obama believes in the Marxist model of redistribution of wealth, taxing the successful even more so than they are now so that it can be given to those poor, less fortunate souls that must be miserable living in the richest nation in the world in horrific conditions better than 98% of the rest of the world. Barack Obama believes that not only the murder of innocent unborn lives should remain legal, but that also abortion survivors should be left on a table to die without any medical assistance, and supports partial birth abortion with is so barbaric and so horrendous I can't believe that anybody in their right mind would support it. With his Global Poverty Act Obama wants to tax you billions of dollars to help stamp out poverty globally (but notice that none of that money would come back to the U.S., and that Obama also complains about the deficit as he proclaims increased spending - meaning, taxes will rise and rise and rise and rise). I suppose that goes back to that Marxist redistribution of wealth thing. America is just too prosperous for his stomach to take, I suppose, so he wants to tax us into poverty so that we can give it all to those other countries that reject the economic system that made us so prosperous in the first place.

Obama's view of national security is to disarm the United States while slowing down current weapons projects (which will make them more expensive over the long term), and ending what he calls the "unproven" anti-missile system ("unproven" in the way that it hasn't had to shoot down an incoming missile, I suppose, but has had recent incredible successes shooting down a moving target. Almost every test shows improvement. How idiotic would it be to scrap a system after spending tens of billions of dollars on it and at a time when we are close to success?

The list of my disagreements with the Obama Campaign's stance on the issues goes farther than that, but you get the idea.

Fact is, Barack Obama and John McCain are applying for the job of President of the United States. As their potential employers, we are entitled to ask questions, view verification of their eligibility, and question their character if necessary. That's what potential employers do. Obama has failed to answer questions directly, failed to quickly produce valid proof of his eligibility, and rather than responding like a humbled public servant, reacts with the arrogance of a liberal elitist that has limited experience, and has surrounded himself with questionable, unscrupulous people like Rezko and Ayers and Rev. Wright.

I imagine that if both candidates were together in a question and answer session and a little red wagon was wheeled onto the stage and they were asked what color the wagon is, McCain would undoubtedly respond, "The wagon is red."

Obama would launch into a long, stuttering, "uh" filled history of wagons, why everyone should be entitled to a wagon, and that the wagon production corporations are the enemy because they refuse to make wagons in other colors out of blatant bigotry and inability to understand the true nature people who simply want to feel we are united by being able to be given a wagon of any color they desire. He would then offer to hit the wagon corporations with a windfall tax to force them to bring down the price of wagons, and produce wagons in a multicultural and diverse manner.

Is that who you want to take over the most powerful office in the world? Do we really want an indecisive, inexperienced, race-baiting, socialist program pushing man with essentially no moral convictions in the White House?

No comments: