The first debate is over and pundits are busy analyzing the candidates. Seventy percent of what I’ve heard so far is commentary about how presidential Barack Obama looked, and how tired McCain appeared. It reminded me of the Kennedy/Nixon debate, when Kennedy appeared young and vibrant, while Nixon looked as if he hadn’t shaved in a week.

My question is, “Why is only 30% of the discussion centered on the issues?” I first resent the notion Americans have that a president of the United States should be perfect. As far as I know, there was only one perfect person in the entire history of the world, and he was crucified. I am not looking for a president who looks good, or one who never makes any mistakes; I am looking for a national leader who understands issues, whose policies reflect traditional American values, who knows how to get things done right, and a leader who will be respected (rather than liked) by other national leaders.

During the post-debate interviews with “independent” viewers, one lady remarked, “I don’t know … Senator Obama made me feel better.” We should not allow this woman to vote. If she wants to feel better, consult a physician. Elections aren’t about “feeling,” an emotion … they are about intelligent understanding of campaign issues, and a concomitant appreciation for the likely consequences of a candidate’s policies. I don’t suggest that any of this is a new phenomenon, but if we ever wondered how idiot politicians saddled America, “feeling good” may go a long way to explain it.

The fact is that Obama’s promise to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans is a patent fraud, and no one has asked how it is possible to accomplish this feat along with $3 Trillion in new spending. No, what Obama plans to do it increase the debt by providing Americans with tax rebates … a good trick since 95% of all Americans do not pay taxes to begin with. McCain, on the other hand, is focusing … as I think a viable candidate should, on significant reductions in spending, including Defense. There is something laudable about a candidate who wants to get more bang for the buck … something absurd about one who promises Americans the moon without a delivery system.

Neither candidate adequately addressed Afghanistan; what I mean by this is that no one has said what the US intends to achieve by increasing its military footprint in that god-forsaken place. I don’t want to hear any discussion about an Afghan surge until we first learn about the mission … since the mission will tell us how many troops, and it will give us some understanding about how long the Afghan mission will last. Meanwhile, Obama plans to threaten the Pakistanis to get control of their western provinces … or, presumably, we’ll do that for them. This clearly shows that Obama is an idiot. Meanwhile, as Medvedev and Putin are scurrying around forming alliances with Middle Eastern countries (creating new spheres of influence), Mr. Obama favors issuing empty threats to Russia about the Ukraine and Georgia … and both Russian leaders are laughing their asses off. The point is that even before Obama can assume the throne in the White House, he has already lost credibility with our foreign detractors.

McCain is correct about Iraq. He didn’t send us there, but if elected, he will be responsible for our disengagement. The method and timing of this will have significant future implications for the Middle East, and our role as a world leader in that region. This is not a time for do-over’s, and if Obama makes the lady “feel good,” I wonder how long that will last when an Al Qaeda resurgence leads to renewed attacks upon American persons and property. And McCain is right about another thing: Obama simply doesn’t get it … but that’s understandable. He attended public high schools.

Presidential elections are not beauty contests. Forget how old or how young the candidates are, forget how cute they look, dismiss notions about whether they look refreshed or tired. Look deep inside the issues, work hard to understand them and their implications, and vote with your brains, not your hearts. This is the awesome responsibility of citizenship.         

When I claim that members of Congress are idiots … when I opine that our first challenge in solving problems is government incompetence, I really mean it. According to T. Boone Pickens, “America needs an energy policy that will encourage new domestic energy production and make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. However, we expect the House of Representatives and Senate to consider flawed legislative proposals this week; if enacted, [both proposals] will likely have the opposite effect. In fact, these bills include a number of tried and failed strategies. The House Leadership’s Energy Bill and the Senate’s “Group of 20” Energy Bill would thwart new domestic energy production, make America more dependent on imported oil, and threaten U.S. jobs.”

A summary of House and Senate proposals:

These plans deny states a fair share of revenues, including royalty payments, giving them no incentive to open up to oil and natural gas development.

The legislation fails to provide dependable or meaningful access to domestic oil and natural gas reserves, barring access to resources off the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, as well as in ANWR.

These policies will impose at least $30 billion in new taxes and fees that will likely push oil and natural gas investments overseas, and reduce U.S. production, jobs, and revenue.

Asked when American politics started getting nasty, Rudy Giuliani opined that it began during the 2000 elections. I disagree. I think it began during the Federalist Debates after the start of the Constitutional Convention. My point is Americans have always disagreed with one another along an entire range of issues that affect them personally. One-third of our colonial forefathers were completely disengaged from the revolution, but of course, there was a risk to sitting along the sidelines, too. There still is.

Does anyone think that there was an absence of political rancor during Andrew Jackson’s bid for the Presidency in 1824 and 1828? Is it necessary to point out that Jackson’s eight years in office was pure hell for Whigs/Federalists?

The Lincoln/Douglas debates were hardly cordial. Back then, Democrats were the conservatives, and Republican Abraham Lincoln was an amazingly progressive politician for his day. Over the next 70 years, Democrats tired of having everyone see them as an impediment to progress, so they stole that mantle in 1932 and have sort of maintained it every since. “Sort of” means that Democrats championed progressive policies for everyone except black people. We might recall that between the end of the Civil War and Civil Rights legislation in 1964, Democrats were proud of their association with Jim Crow legislation.

It wasn’t until after Lyndon Johnson that the “silent majority” decided they’d had enough of the so-called Great Society. Even then, we didn’t hear much in the way of “I’m mad as hell” vitriol from the political right and center. Americans began speaking out against leftist ideology and our steady march toward a communist state during the Carter Administration. And this is when I think politics really started getting nasty … but there is a good reason for this. You see, the socialist state doesn’t like it when people talk back. They’d much prefer we all just sit down and shut up. We even see examples of this today, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi really doesn’t care what Americans think about the so-called gas crisis. And my good friend AOW tells me that when she writes (numerous) letters to her elected Democrat representative, he refuses even to give her the courtesy of a reply. It is hard to imagine such arrogance and disrespect from a “servant of the people.”

Tom asks, “Aren’t we all Americans?” Yes … sort of. We are all Americans, except the 40% who would like nothing better than to transform America into a European styled socialist state. Another 40% prefer to maintain our conservative traditions. Twenty percent can go either way, depending on the issues of the day. If we are all Americans … if we all love our country, why do so many leftists want to change America into something she’s not?

On this note, I do find American politics amazingly inconsistent. It is difficult to understand why labor unions support the same Democratic Party that encourages the un-ending flow of illegal aliens. You know … the same illegal alien population that drives up medical costs to the point where no one can afford health care, except illegal aliens, who get it free. Of course, the crisis does demand additional socialist solutions that mirror the failed national health care systems in Canada and the United Kingdom. The leftist agenda does seem clear to me. The people who garner degrees in minority studies and leftist philosophy demand solutions to the problems they created through leftist ideology. They don’t actually produce anything, of course … outside the perpetuation of their revisionist/Marxist agenda. I could be wrong, but in the animal kingdom, we call such creatures, “parasites.”  

America is changing … whether I like it or not. It is purely and simply in the math. Millions of illegal aliens are streaming into our country from socialist Mexico. They are here because the government of Mexico isn’t meeting their needs, and liberal American politicians promise them lots of free stuff … including sanctuary from criminal prosecution. These “new left” illegal citizens fill up our voting registers (I call it voter fraud; other people call it organizing the community … programs that are prevalent in certain northern cities). We no longer provide Civics Education in our schools (it gets in the way of organized athletics), parents no longer teach and reinforce traditional values, and of course, all morality is relative. Did I mention that leftist ideology teaches us it is gauche to acknowledge our belief in God?

So I predict that in fifty years, there may not be any traditional American voices in the United States. In fifty years, I’ll be long gone. America’s geography will remain unchanged, but the question is … Will America survive? Que Sare(h) Sare(h).

There is little question among my few readers that I oppose socialism, or that I oppose the candidacy of Barack Obama as our next president. In fact, not only do I oppose an Obama presidency now, I will oppose him in the future. And the reason for this isn’t that I detest the man; I don’t know him personally, and unlike George Bush, I lack the ability to look deep into the souls of men. I oppose Barack Obama because his training has led him to adopt socialism and embrace Marxist social models. I reject his idea that government must have a controlling role in my life, and while government is unavoidable, I believe it should have a minor role.

The concept of socialism/Marxism is so depressing to the human spirit that one wonders how any well-educated, bright individual could embrace such ideas. People interested in a political career have to determine the methodology for gaining popular support … because without it, there can be no political career. One track for achieving popular support is to embrace an ideology that promises something for nothing. Such ideas originate among individuals who somehow believe the government owes them. 

By extension, these people believe that “we the people” owe them. And by every measure, government responsibility releases them of assuming personal responsibility – and it gives lazy people the opportunity to blame government for all their ills. In the news today, the unemployment rate has increased to 6.1% -- which, in the minds of socialists, is not only the government’s fault, but it also obligates the government to do something about it. It is difficult to imagine such attitudes among pioneering families, who through their individualism and toughness, gave us this country to begin with – but it has become the legacy of men like Franklin D. Roosevelt who set American socialism into motion.

Barack Obama has accepted the torch of socialism. Here stands a man thoroughly indoctrinated by the teaching of James Cone via his acolyte Jeremiah Wright – the black theology that holds that white Christians are the work of the devil because 160 years ago, they did nothing to oppose slavery or racial segregation. And the fact that Barack Obama has affiliated himself with the same Jim Crow party that continued slavery through racial segregation is by itself an amazing phenomena. It is proof that no good turn goes unpunished; if there was any sensible correlation between history and the present, Barack Obama would be a Republican. Of course, as a Republican, Obama could never have succeeded as a politician in Chicago … the underlying goal of which is personal achievement. It is placing personal achievement ahead of what is best for the people of the United States.

In evaluating Obama’s training, we cannot ignore the influence of Marxist James Cone; we cannot ignore the implications of that training on the likely programs Mr. Obama will implement once he enters the White House. According to Hoover Institute fellow Stanley Kurtz, James Cone advocates "complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.  For Cone, the deeply racist structure of American society leaves blacks with no alternative but radical transformation or social withdrawal.  So-called Christianity, as commonly practiced in the United States, is actually the racist Antichrist.  ‘Theologically,’ Cone affirms, ‘Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.’ The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.”

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but Cone and his devotees conveniently overlook the fact that hundreds of thousands of white men died, and white families suffered, in order to end the filth of slavery and that as many white people have worked tirelessly to ensure black Americans have every opportunity to succeed. This does not include, however, social democrats who even today continue to enslave blacks within the shell of government dependency. Barack Obama seeks to perpetuate the myth of socialism; he works tirelessly to convince us that we need more government, not less, and he does this in spite of incontrovertible evidence that expensive government programs are a waste of our limited economic resources.

A true political liberal embraces the idea that individuals know what is best for them. Obama, therefore, is not a political liberal. He is a socialist/Marxist committed to the idea that the government must own or regulate the means of production, distribution, or exchange. Not long ago, a prominent House Democrat even suggested nationalizing the petroleum industries … and he did it with a straight face. Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton in 1992, promises a tax break to the middle class (with some vague notion of what that means in terms of income) … and I have no doubt that Mr. Obama, like Bill Clinton, will break that promise once he’s in office. 

Plainly, Senator Obama just doesn’t get it. He has no viable economic policy, and he lacks the common sense to value controlled spending over increased taxation. He espouses no viable energy policy … but it is in the nature of his politics that this could change at any moment. He is clearly out of his depth in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy.   I reject Barack Obama because I reject the notion of government social and economic interventionism. I reject Barack Obama because I reject black theology as a surrogate for racist Marxism. I reject Barack Obama because I wouldn’t trust him to organize a kindergarten picnic, much less the government of the United States.