Change For Change Sake

My primary concern is that our citizens will elect a person who really doesn't seem to care for the country as the 'head caretaker' should. Every time we hold a national election history is made. But this election is unusually significant, in that the Democrats presented voters with the first opportunity to select either a female or a ... what ... not white, not black ... I suppose the most accurate way to describe Obama would be "a man of color" as their candidate for the highest office in the land. Okay, fine. They have proven that we are neither conclusively sexist or racist in our selection of candidates - that it is possible for a woman, or a non-white/non-black, to come to the forefront of politics in our country. Unfortunately, in making that point, they have also proven that people vote with their emotions rather than their brains.

Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.

Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?

Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!

I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ~

Okay, here’s what we, in the USA, are faced with in November. The three front-runners for their party’s nomination to become President of the United States have no experience running government at any level … none, nada, zip, zero, zed. However, all three have exposure to the operations of government at various levels and for significantly different periods of time.

One of them has been caught lying almost every time she opens her mouth – she is obviously a true politician! Another expects us to believe that he is either so naïve, or so inattentive, that he was unaware his “friend, pastor, and mentor” of 20-plus years stirred the pot of racial animosity with a very large paddle, while simultaneously condemning the Senator’s country for every human misdeed since the crucifixion. The last candidate - thus far - has only committed the unforgivable act of longevity.

Anybody who expects honesty from a politician probably sits patiently watching the hearth on Christmas Eve, waiting for “you know who”. It’s a given that politicians will attempt to satisfy the desires of their audience, and we expect them to play fast and loose with the truth. The Democratic hopefuls have turned fast and loose into an art form, and set a new land speed record for "fast".

So, without honesty or true experience, what trait is left upon which we may base our voting decision? Character. And that applies to all three … two ARE characters and one HAS character. Vote accordingly. Personally, I don’t think any are particularly worthy of the office. With slightly over 301,000,000 people, these 3 are the best we could come up with? There is obviously something seriously wrong with our selection system ...

I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!