Ok, it's not hate mail. But the response was so spot-on, I had to share with you. The email was sent to me by my friend (and blogging buddy), Allison:
Hey, here's something a soldier friend wrote to a friend of his in Australia...the three of us were Facebooking about Obama and Bush and how much she hated Bush and apparently is under the impression that 9/11 is our own fault....I think you'll really like his reply.I know it's difficult for outsiders to appreciate American politics, but the phenomenon you're seeing is the manifestation of the shallow MTV/pop culture fanaticism. It's easy to get caught up in this, considering how heavily slanted the media is in its coverage. You allege that Obama is an "intelligent and good" man, yet there is very little--if anything--to corroborate his presidential credentials. Let's go through the list:
- law degree
- US Senator for 5 months before declaring his candidacy
- Community organizer
- Reads a teleprompter with great eloquence
Not very impressive, is it? He's probably qualified to be an intern in the White House, but certainly neither experienced enough, wise enough, or educated enough to dictate national policy.
And for all the criticism of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, her experiences as a mayor and governor alone outshine Obama in the totality of his accomplishments because they indicate she's astute with budgeting, can handle executive offices, have worked with passing legislation before, and have commanded military troops, none of which Obama can claim. All, by the way, while serving in fine style as a loving mother of five children (while Obama smokes cigarettes in front of his).
For what reasons did people vote for Obama?
- He looks nice (young, black, attractive, fashionable)
- He sounds nice (reads teleprompters well)
- Not George W. Bush
Beyond those, there's really not much else to say. It's significant to note that there was never one workplace colleague, combat comrade, or lifelong compatriot who stepped forward to vouch for Obama's hard work, professionalism, erudition, or wisdom at any point during the campaign. We had to rely solely on the media blitz, the YouTube videos, and the slobbering media attention heaped upon him. Make no mistake: the media has been entirely in the tank for Obama. Considering the number of accomplishments, depth of experience, and breadth of service McCain holds in comparison, one would think Obama's record would pale in comparison and the media would watch with critical eye the inexperienced, unaccomplished, and otherwise unremarkable freshman senator from the nation's most corrupt state, but they didn't. MSNBC led the crowd of media outlets agog with dreams of Obama; only FoxNews reported equally favorable/unfavorable stories about each candidate (though there is far less favorable about Obama to draw from): http://www.journalism.org/node/13436. Even late night talk shows popped jokes at McCain at a rate of 7:1 to Obama jokes (more on this later).
What else do we know about Obama?
- Wrote 2 books about himself, but has penned exactly zero significant legislation
- Admits in his own writings that he used to do so much drugs that he has "no memory" of 4 years of his life
- Closely affiliated with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayres
- Never held an executive position of any sort prior to becoming the chief executive of the United States
- Never served a single day in the military--let alone a single day in combat--yet is the wartime commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world
- Has never run a business or owned a company, yet speaks about economics as if he has some knowledge on the subject
- Married a woman who declared she was never proud of her country...until her husband started winning delegates in the US presidential election, whose graduate thesis leveled unfounded accusations of racism even while she benefitted from affirmative action, racial quotas, and attended an Ivy League school. Let's not forget that she held a $300,000 sine cure position at a Chicago hospital while her husband ran for president.
- Sat for 20 years in the pews of a "black liberation theology" congregation (look that term up and it will frighten you), imbibing racist-, blasphemy-laden hatespeech from the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- Stands with radical leftist politicians like John Kerry, Harry Reid, and John Murtha who label US troops murderers, terrorists, rapists while they carry out the will of Congress in terrible conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan
Could you contrast Obama with McCain? They're in completely different leagues. McCain is a graduate of the prestigious US Naval Academy, is the son and grandson of naval admirals, served honorably as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, was shot down and suffered 5 years in a prisoner of war camp (which is a polar opposite from the vacation hotspot that is the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; I'm talking about real torture, not the "discomfort" that the loony Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch organizations scream about), and has a over 40 years of public service, voting so independently that he garnered the nickname "the Maverick".
As for Iraq, you say the conflict is a farce, yet you state that you'd written an academic paper several years ago discussing how the UN was a worthless organization. And a worthless organization it is. Morally bankrupt, the UN gives "genocidal tyrannies honored positions on human rights commissions" (Prager) and denounces Israel for retaliating against Palestinian terrorists; it denounces the peaceloving liberal democracy of Israel more often than any other nation on earth. The UN issued 17 unanimous proclamations warning Iraq's Saddam Hussein that if he did not show transparency in his WMD disarmament, he would face "terrible measures". Since the UN is entirely spineless and former US president Bill Clinton was driven by popularity instead of morality or justice, Saddam saw no reason to comply. Seventeen times. Then what? The US and Britain (generally the only two nations on earth with the will to do what's right over what's popular, even at the risk of sacrificing human lives) were spending billions of dollars each year enforcing the "no fly zones" and monitoring the UN's "oil for food" ("oil for fraud") program, were being attacked regularly, but yet did nothing. In the end, Bush did the right thing by seeking votes on the Iraq referendum (which he didn't have to do), securing the approval of far-left zealots like Hillary Clinton and the murderer Ted Kennedy (do you know about Chappaquiddick?), both of whom acknowledged that Saddam was a threat who had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. It is beyond the pale that either of them would claim to have been "misled" by Bush, as they have access to the same intelligence that Bush had and independently came to the same conclusion as every major intelligence agency worldwide.
The only time Clinton did anything to enforce UN sanctions from the US end was to launch cruise missile strikes into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense--which he did in the middle of the night, so as not to excise any of the military planners, but to kill innocent cleaning personnel working inside. Bush rightly saw 9/11 as a wake-up call about the nascent threat of Islamist terrorism. It had existed as a growing problem since 1979's Iranian Revolution and we'd been hit over and over and over again, never seeing fit to take action. With the 9/11 attacks fresh in the world's mind, it wasn't a far stretch to postulate that since Al-Qa'ida operatives had met with Saddam and his agents (though not linked to 9/11) and had discussed acquiring WMD, which was already AQ's stated goal (google Tarnak Farms, for one). Since we'd been sitting on the Iraq pot long enough, spending large amounts of money, and seeing no resolution in sight, Bush made it his policy to show there were teeth in American jaws; when we said we were serious, we wouldn't be the pussy-footed Bill Clinton who had done nothing when the USS Cole was attacked, when the World Trade Center (1993) was attacked, when the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked, et cetera. "No greater friend, no greater enemy" is what the US Marines say. The beloved Clinton also brought us, as Allison rightly said, the debacles of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and Sudan. All of which showed tepid response too late. The Yugoslav and Sudanese genocides occurred on Clinton's watch, yet he was too afraid of losing public opinion (read: popularity) by engaging militarily.
But let's get back to Obama's first few weeks in office. He's been a disaster so far. Rather than take the time to review existing policies, such as stem cell research (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html) and gays in the military, he brought his leftist ideals to the table and pushed his ideological views without entertaining a debate on the merits of each argument. Not very wise, if you ask me. He also sought to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which is wholly suited to house the worst of the worst of AQ terrorists (make no mistake, there are very few who are not simply horrible people in there; you really have to be a screw-up to end up there), never thinking through what the options were. In foreign policy? Tragic. What did we expect from a man who has exactly zero foreign policy experience? Here some spot-on analyses:
What about socialized medicine? Where will that take us? At present day, America's healthcare system is the envy of the world. Brits and Canadians flock to the United States to get better care, faster care, and are willing to pay for it. It's the basic principle of capitalism; meritocracies work because competition is healthy. If you remove options, the reason for competition disappears and customer service suffers. Here's a perfect analogy: how would you contrast service in a British pub with an American restaurant? It's completely different. American waitresses rely heavily on tips and work harder to earn their wages as a result. British wait staff get paid the same whether they are working their tail off, or serving no one at all. It's the reason why communism, socialism, and marxism always fail.
What do we expect of financial policy from a man who knows nothing about economics? He has pushed a multi-trillion dollar "stimulus" package loaded with liberal pet projects, few of which are actually designed to stimulate the economy in the short term, and are entirely designed to benefit far-left policy in the long term. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502951.html)
As far as cabinet picks, he's chosen:
- a tax cheat as his Treasury Secretary
- a social faux pas nightmare as his Secretary of State (just google "reset button", which was more appropriately translated as "overload":
- a Director of Central Intelligence who hasn't any experience with intelligence collection, analysis, reporting, or policy
- has left several crucial cabinet positions vacant even several weeks into his presidency
- has a Homeland Security Secretary--a position established to protect the United States against the threat of [Islamist] terrorism--who refuses to acknowledge that radical Islam poses a threat to national security
You said no one could ever pay you to vote Republican, but look at the record of hate and corruption our Democrats boast:
- Michael Moore churning out one hateful Goebbels-esque propaganda movie after another, each designed to embarrass, humiliate, and smear people or the American system.
- Nighttime talk show hosts (Leno, Letterman, et al) making jokes at the expense of McCain more than 7 times (statistically) as often as at Obama's expense. "...the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs says David Letterman and Jay Leno are skewering the Republican candidates seven times more than the Democrats. The group says that during the five weeks after John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, Leno and Letterman picked on McCain and Palin 286 times, but told just 42 jokes about Barack Obama and Joe Biden. There were 106 McCain jokes and a whopping 180 about Palin. Obama was targeted 26 times, and Joe Biden just 16 times, less than one-tenth the number of jokes about Palin."
- Bill Maher producing a movie that mocks religion, following a career of mocking Christianity.
- Kathy Griffin slamming Jesus Christ, never having to apologize, while Gray's Anatomy Isaiah Washington had to make a tearful apology for a comment that he made against gays, or face excommunication from the Hollywood elite.
- Chris Matthews's comment "Cheney, who always wants to kill...", suggesting that the vice president enjoys murder as a hobby.
- The hateful Daily Kos's disgusting doctored photograph of Sen. Joe Lieberman kneeling before Pres. Bush in a move to begin fellatio. (Followed by the support of all Democrat presidential candidates at this hate-site's convention)
- Rosie O'Donnell's conspiracy theories about how the Bush Administration orchestrated and perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- The overwhelming attention given to Sen. Larry Craig's arrest and the lack of attention to former Sen. John Edwards's extramarital affair and ensuing hijinks.
- The disproportionate attention given to the corruption investigation into Sen. Ted Stevens compared to Rep. William Jefferson (shamefully selfish behavior during Hurricane Katrina relief efforts while his constituents were dying in the streets, hidden stash of $90,000 bribe money in his freezer).
- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's recent arrest on corruption charges, in which he is recorded offering Obama's senate seat for cash.
- NJ Sen. Robert Toricelli's corruption hijinks and election shenanigans (changing election rules to suit the needs of the Democrat candidate).
I could continue on ad infinitum. It's hard for me not to want to side with people I wouldn't necessarily vote for simply because they're so hatefully dishonored and besmirched because of differences of political opinion. If you're really paying attention, you'll notice how slanted the news is. Associated Press and Reuters regularly report on corruption and criminal activity in American politics, but generally report the party affiliation only if the pol is a Republican. I resent the sneaky, agenda-driven bias (propaganda) and it drives me further the other way. To wit:
- Sen. Trent Lott's vague birthday celebration comments praising longtime Senator Strom Thurmond went thusly, "...If [Thurmond] had been elected president, this nation would be a different place." No mention of race or economics, defense or social agenda. But Lott was labeled a racist because he complimented a man who had once embraced racism, and Lott was asked to step down. Looks like Charlie Rangel is in hot water now for ethics concerns, as is Rep. William Jefferson, but there are no calls for them to step down from their posts, even though their crimes are quite well-documented (and while reprehensible, the ideology of racism is not a crime).
The examples are endless. Republicans have their issues, as well, but the difference is in the scope and breadth of corruption and immorality...and that Republicans actually police up the problems their ranks while Democrats circle the wagons and decline to comment.
I don't know, (name withheld). I don't want him to fail because so much holds in the balance, but he's doing so poorly already. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" because it means we're losing so many important battles at home and around the world. Obama's cluelessness can best be summed up in his thoughtless gifts to the heads of state of America's oldest and most important ally:
- A set of DVDs of American movies to Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister...movies that don't even play in Britain because they're in NTSC format (not PAL)
- An iPod for the Queen of England, which includes (frighteningly predictably) Obama's most wondrous speeches
The worst part is that both of these gifts--while neither thoughtful, momentous, or meaningful--were all purchased in the White House Gift Shop.
Truly it is amateur hour now in the White House.
How sad for us all.