The possibility of Senator Barack Obama becoming President of the United States worries me a great deal. While I consider myself a conservative, I'm not a particularly smitten with John McCain either. However, when voting for someone to lead the nation, it is sometime precient to vote for the lesser of two evils - not that I consider either candidate "evil."

As I stated in my previous post, my aim in writing this is not to compare the two. It is simply to explain why I believe Senator Obama is the absolute wrong choice for President. One thing I wish to stay away from is the emotions and rhetoric involved in this year's campaign - an election cycle that unfortunately has become remarkably fueled by style over substance.

Since I was first old enough to vote (in 1980), I was often dismayed with how skewed the media portrayed the conservative candidate against the liberal one. It seemed every election, most reporters were either in the tank for the Democrat nominee, or were certainly more cynical about the Republican. Hollywood and the music industry also have heavily supported whomever the Democrats bring out, which amazes me, although it really shouldn't. Many artists live in a bubble of adulation and praise and are often unaware of the realities of life outside Hollywood. To many of them, they will do and say what is popular amongst themselves. The same goes for those in academia. Again, these are not the ones who have to work hard each and every day just to put food on the table. They are not those who go to PTA meetings, churches and synagogues, or bowling alleys. Academics, for the most part, are paid to remain in a closed fraternity - away from the lives of most Americans.

Whether it was for Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry, the passion for the Democrat Party's nominee has been almost cult-like. Almost as if each one of them was the "Second-coming" of the Messiah.

Adoration of Barack Obama has surpassed that and more. Why is that? I believe the answer lies in a number of places - all have led to an almost perfect storm.

Obviously, since the 2000 election, most Democrats believe (unfairly) that George Bush stole the election from Al Gore - choosing to ignore the absolute facts of the situation. Although the movie, Recount, tries to imply otherwise, it would have been a "stolen" election only if the courts awarded Al Gore the victory. Aside from Mr. Gore's insistence that only the three heavily Democrat districts be recounted, the Miami Herald and the USA Today (neither one of which endorsed Mr. Bush) both concluded in independent recounts that President Bush did defeat Vice-President Gore in Florida.

However, to the Democrats, cries of stolen elections could be heard for years to come and it became a rallying cry for the John Kerry campaign in 2004. Yet even though the majority of media pundits, Hollywood actors and actresses and what seemed to be the entire European continent wanted Kerry, President Bush won re-election by a rather comfortable margin.

The horror of a Bush re-election was best illustrated by the international headline, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" In the following years, Democrats have seethed about losing again to a man most considered "stupid", "a monkey" and the equivalent to Adolph Hitler (nice). Thus, the Bush derangement syndrome was born - where everything from the beginning of time that has ever happened was blamed on President Bush. While admittedly, his administration has not always been blameless, the vile sheer hatred of the man has become legendary.

This untamed hatred has unfortunately clouded many people around the world - especially those on the political left. In their eyes, everything Bush does or says has been condemned and vilified - not for the facts, but for the man. And this is very unfortunate for the good of our country. By clouding their vision, liberals have concluded the only way to make America "right again" is to undo the "damage" done by President Bush. But in reality, the question is "what damage?"

This short-sightedness has led us to Barack Obama. Obama is not only the latest incantation of the Messiah-searching Democrats, but just may be the most dangerous. In Obama, the liberals have discovered a man who is everything that President Bush isn't. And as an added bonus - something to get him over the hump, so to speak, he's black. Because he is a person of color, Democrats can use race to their advantage. If you've noticed (and certainly, I have), Obama's color has strategically been used to his advantage. Liberals are knocking themselves out with charges of racism and xenophobia anytime any criticism of Obama is made.

All that has accomplished has been to divide this country even further apart. By once again clouding the debate, the liberals have created a terrible dilema for the United States. At a time when rogue governments and Islamic terrorists have developed (or will develop) nuclear weapons - governments who want nothing but to see our nation and our people destroyed without regard to their own), we are too caught up in the mass hysteria of "global warming" and multi-culturism.

And why? Why is this happening? Because liberalism at its core, is equal to socialism. To have the State decide what you can do, where you can work, what you can feed your children, what you can say, is socialism. With each new law that limits our freedom, we become one step closer to socialism. It's already gotten so bad in Great Britain that now school lunches that parents pack for their children must be approved by the government. Although remarkably, Mark Steyn was acquitted, Canada’s Human Rights Commission has caused a tremendous amount of grief for believers in free speech.

The great concern the world today is not “global warming” and America’s greatest threat is not racism. The world has become considerably more dangerous than it has ever been. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been able to blind many Americans into buying into their Bush derangement philosophy which clouds the true evils we face. This is why electing Obama would be so dangerous.

In his own words, Obama has pledged to undo the “failed policies” of his predecessors. But how failed are they and which policies is he talking about? For instance, Obama has promised to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq and will begin the process immediately upon inauguration. However, as we have learned time and again (and as the armed forces generals have pleaded), we are clearly winning the war in Iraq. Even the President of Iraq has called Obama’s platform “troubling” and “a victory for the enemy.” Why on Earth would Al-Qaeda not go into hiding until America pulls her troops and then resume operations. Obama has said that should that happen, he will send the troops back in.

If?

This shows a complete lack of understanding and foresight. In addition, Obama has pledged – numerous times- that he would meet without preconditions the leaders of nations who are enemies of America. Obviously, this would legitimize rouge nations and afford them a moral equivalency that they do not deserve. However recently, Obama has backtracked on his stance and said there would be conditions. So how is that different than President Bush?

There is an old adage that says if you want to know about someone, look at who they are friends with. Unfortunately, you can learn a lot of negative things about Obama from the company he keeps. It is not racism to question the wisdom of being an active member of a Black radical theology church for 20 years. It is not racism to question why Obama could “no more distance himself from Reverend Wright anymore than he could from his own White grandmother.” But when more speeches were uncovered, he kicked him off his campaign. It is not racism to question the close relationship Obama has with William Ayers or Tony Rezko. Furthermore, it’s not racism to question what Michelle Obama means when she says things that many people find controversial - especially in light of her stumping for her husband on the road. If she wanted to be left alone, she should’t have started campaigning for him.

What makes this concern even more alarming is how the mainstream is treating Obama. What should be the last defense against injustice and abuse, the media has become the very thing they have fought against for hundreds of years. Causing the downfall of President Nixon and skewing the coverage of the Vietnam, the mass media was able to show themselves as above the needs of the country. Certainly, abuses by a President, or acts unbecoming an officer should be reported and condemned, even criminalized. But the media has for years been spinning out of control and until recently - with the explosion of the Internet – went unchallenged. They also began abusing their power.

This, of course, led to Dan Rather and the phony Bush papers. Thankfully, there are other ways of finding out the news. Unfortunately, these outlets are now coming under attack from the Democrats as well. With her recent comments about supporting the “fairness doctrine,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has resurrected a very disturbing possibility. While Obama claims to oppose it, I find it very unlikely that he will stand against as President. Of course, this “fairness” doctrine will simply result in silencing conservative radio. It will cause radio stations to change formats rather than to deal with the regulations placed upon them. Of course, talk radio is popular because many Americans do not trust that the mainstream media is evenhanded. What the Left can not compete with in the marketplace, they will sue to destroy.

That doesn’t sound particularly “fair.”

Lastly, an Obama presidency will set back America’s relationship with Israel – The only consistent ally she has in the region (until Iraq). Although the Israeli government seems to be stuck on “self-destruct,” going back to days and policies of Jimmy Carter, or even Bill Clinton, is a recipe for disaster. While President Bush (or at least Condi Rice) has been short-sighted as of late, he has built a reputation as Israel’s friend. Obviously, this is not a claim Jimmy Cater can make. Judging by Obama’s history – regardless of his speech at Aipac, which he contradicted the next day – he can not be considered someone who will treat Israel as a friend. With Islamic terrorism being the most dangerous threat, that does not bode very well for America in an Obama administration.

These are simply a few of the reasons why I believe Obama should not be elected. Individually, they are troublesome. Combined, it could be lethal. Allowing emotions and hatred of all things Bush to cloud your vision is irresponsible and may just cause you to make the worst possible choice on Election Day. The damage an Obama presidency can do could set back this country 50 years or more, assuming the damage is reversible.

Don’t be fooled by the hype. Not when that’s all there is.