He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Archive for November 2008

Liberal vs. Conservative and the U.S. Constitution

In some of my earliest posts on this blog, I looked at Obama’s rhetoric and ideologies through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.  Tonight, I read an article on The American Thinker and really think it goes a long way to suggesting the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives (note:  I did not say Democratics and Republicans, I said liberals and conservatives).  I encourage you to read the article and see which side you come out on.

November 08, 2008

America’s Third Republic?

By:  Harold Kildow

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 8, 2008 at 12:39 am

All the Crazies are Now Speaking

As I reported in my previous post, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the spotlight, and guess who else spoke on the record this week?  That’s right, William Ayers is now making his thoughts known about being in spotlight during the presidential campaigns.  Here is part of the article taken from the The New Yorker:

Early this morning, the Obama family voted at the Beulah Shoesmith Elementary School, in Hyde Park. Long after they had gone, the lawn in front of the school was filled with reporters, mostly Europeans, filming voters. While I was talking to an eight-year-old kid dressed as George Washington, my colleague Peter Slevin, of the Washington Postwas across the street, knocking on the door of someone else who had voted at the Shoesmith School this morning: William Ayers.

Ayers has avoided reporters ever since he became an election talking point, scratch pole, and general sensation. But now he answered the door of his three-story row house, and I joined the discussion. Ayers is sixty-four and has earrings in both ears. He wore jeans and a Riley T-shirt—Riley the kid from “Boondocks.” The day was fall-bright and 50th Street was filled with fallen gold leaves. Ayers waved to neighbors and kids as they went by on the sidewalk. He was, for the first time in a long while, in an expansive mood, making clear that, in all the months his name has been at the forefront of the campaign, he and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn—ex-leaders of the Weather Underground and longtime educators and activists in the community—have been watching a lot of cable television, not least Fox.

One night, Ayers recalled, he and Dohrn were watching Bill O’Reilly, who was going on about “discovering” Ayers’s 1974 manifesto, “Prairie Fire.” “I had to laugh,” Ayers said. “No one read it when it was first issued!” He said that he laughed, too, when he listened to Sarah Palin’s descriptions of Obama“palling around with terrorists.” In fact, Ayers said that he knew Obama only slightly: “I think my relationship with Obama was probably like that of thousands of others in Chicago and, like millions and millions of others, I wished I knew him better.”

Read Full Story

And it’s not only William Ayers speaking freely again.  Both Louis Farrakhan and Father Pfleger preached anew this past weekend.  You can find there pronouncements here:

Farrakhan says Obama a ‘oneness of spirt’

Pfleger:  “Free at Last”

Back to good ol’ William Ayers, wishing he knew Obama better.  Sometimes I wonder how dumb these people think we are?  The Chicago political scene, there’s just nothing like it anywhere else in America.  Oh wait a minute.  Sure there is.  It’s about to take up residence at the White House.

For a little taste of Chicago politics in the White House see, The American Thinker:  “Obama and the Daley Machine.”

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 7, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Rev. Wright Making a Comeback?

According to the Associated Press:

MILFORD, Conn. – Barack Obama’s former pastor complained yesterday that the media used him as a “weapon of mass destruction” in an attempt to derail Obama’s campaign for the presidency.

Speaking at a forum about race and religion, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright accused the media of taking out of context videos that showed him cursing the government and accusing it of conspiring against blacks from the pulpit of the Chicago church where Obama had worshipped for 20 years.

See Full Story

So what’s up with Rev. Wright and his first public appearance since Barack Obama’s victorious bid for the Presidency?  I’ll venture a guess that this is a first in several appearances/press releases that will occur over the next week or so all in an effort to place Rev. Wright in an acceptable light and make it possible for him to attend President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony on January 20, 2009.  I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Obama release a press statement in the next week or so reiterating that Rev. Wright is like family and he just can’t completely keep him entirely out of his life paving the way for an appearance at the inauguration. 

In fact, I can’t imagine Rev. Wright not being at the inauguration.  Remember, Barack Obama willingly joined this church 20 years ago.  In Obama’s book Dream’s of My Father, he described the church as follows:

It occurred to me that Trinity, with its African themes, its emphasis on black history, continued the role that Reverend Philips had described earlier as a redistributor of values and circulator of ideas. Only now the redistribution didn’t run in just a single direction from the schoolteacher or the physician who saw it as a Christian duty to help the sharecropper or the young man fresh from the South adapt to big-city life. The flow of culture now ran in reverse as well; the former gang-banger, the teenage mother, had their own forms of validation-claims of greater deprivation, and hence authenticity, their presence in the church providing the lawyer or doctor with an education from the streets. By widening its doors to allow all who would enter, a church like Trinity assured its members that their fates remained inseparably bound, that an intelligible “us” still remained. [203]

For further excerpts from the book regarding Rev. Wright follow this link.

Barack Obama wrote many, many things about the church in his book.  In his writings he seems to agree with its teachings and tenants.  How could Barack Obama possibly be inaugurated as the first Black President of the United States of America and not have Rev. Wright there.  It just doesn’t seem possible to me.  In this historic inauguration, his African American pastor must attend.  I personally would be disappointed in Mr. Obama if Rev. Wright wasn’t there as his invited guest.  I think we’ll see rhetoric continue over the next several weeks or months making Rev. Wright’s presence at the inauguration an inevitability.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Rating Obama’s Cabinet — Unifiers or Dividers?

While listening to Barack Obama’s eloquence in his victory speech made at Chicago’s Grant Park Tuesday night, I was struck once again how good this wordsmith and performer is at delivering rhetorically beautiful oratory.  After I hear the speeches, I always have to go back and see if the latest oratory gives us any further substantive information regarding the man who will be our next  President.  According to BBC News, the speech can be broken down into the following parts: 

  • Change Has Come
  • Partners in the Journey
  • Victory for the People
  • The Task Ahead
  • Remaking the Nation
  • One Nation, One People
  • America in the World
  • A History of Struggle
  • This is Our Moment

As someone who did not support Obama, one part of the speech that was interesting to me was how Barack Obama plans to unify all of us including those of us who actively opposed him.  In the portion of the speech regarding One Nation, One People, Obama said:

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.

Those are values that we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: “We are not enemies, but friends… though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.”

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.

Full Text of the Speech from BBC News

This theme of unifying the Nation has been a recurrent one throughout the Obama campaign.  It began when he said there are not red states nor blue states but the United States of America as he criss crossed the country stumping his candidacy.  So when he repeated this theme Tuesday night wanting to be our president too, I immediately thought that one way to judge the validity of this statement was to track and evaluate whether or not he brings unifiers to his administration or those who have a history of partisanship and division.

This post will continually be added to as Barack Obama appoints staff and cabinet members, but we have our first official appointment today of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff.  Let’s see how Rahm does in the unifier divider test.

Rahm Emanuel

In the Associated Press article entitled “Emanuel Accepts Job as White House Chief”

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic officials say Barack Obama’s fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel has agreed to be White House chief of staff.

One of Obama’s first decisions as president-elect was to ask the Illinois congressman to run his White House staff. Emanuel accepted Thursday after struggling over family and political considerations.

Emanuel serves in the House Democratic leadership and will have to resign his seat and put aside hopes of becoming House speaker.

Emanuel is a fiery Democrat who served as a political and policy aide in the Clinton White House.His selection is a shift in tone for Obama, who chose more low-key leadership for his presidential campaign.

The initial indications are that Rahm is not a unifier.  Rahm Emmanuel has earned a reputation of being very partisan and is nicknamed Rahmbo.  He has a reputation as a political street fighter.  Like Obama, Emanuel seems to lean to the very far left.  In the House, he voted 98% with democrats seemingly he has a very liberal mindset.  Even Daily Kos (a liberal backing website) doesn’t think Emanuel will make a good Chief of Staff and describes him thus:
There’s one thing that bothers me about him. It’s his ego. He doesn’t sublimate his ego in favor of others very easily, and it’s what I’ve observed from my interactions with him.

I’ll let you decide for yourself whether Rahm Emanuel is a unifier or a divider, but here are some links of stories and videos to help you decide:

My own analysis concludes that Rahm Emanuel is a hyper-partisan democrat.  In evaluating the appointments of Barack Obama anyone who is hyper-partisan or far left leaning (not mildly partisan or mildly liberal) gains them classification as a divider rather than a unifier for it is difficult to be a unifier if you do not see or give some credence to the other side of the aisle.

Unifier/Divider Tally     0-1

  • Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff) — Divider

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Youth of America Choose Political Philosophy over Character and Experience

I was watching Shepard Smith’s FOX Report on the FOX News Channel tonight and saw a survey that stated the youth of America (ages 18-29) chose agreement on the issues (30%) as their most important criteria for electing a candidate, experience and character only garnered 5% each.  Armed with this information, I have to believe that if agreement on the issues are most important to the youth, then that must mean the vast majority of them lean fairly far left, are fairly liberal, and believe in some type of western European socialism since these appear to be the views of Barack Obama.

So then I wonder, do our youth, in general, read our U.S. Constitution understanding its guarantees of individual liberty and freedom and promotion of a limited government?  Do our youth now promote socialism over capitalism?  Are our youth familiar with or have they read Adam Smith the “father of capitalism”?

Adam Smith was a Scottish born economist who wrote in the 1700s: The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations.  As Ed Kaitz wrote in a piece for American Thinker entitled:  “Obama’s Adam Smith Problem”

What gives?  For years I’ve taken a rather morbid interest in the state of academia by asking my college students if they’ve ever even heard of Adam Smith. Invariably about two or three out of fifty mention something about “a Scottish guy.” When I ask about Karl Marx however every hand in the room goes up. By helping to shed some light on “das Adam Smith problem” though I hope that students might come to appreciate a man who more than any other in modern history has shaped the world in which we live. I also hope to demonstrate to students that it’s entirely possible to entertain a defense of Smith’s philosophy of life even against his harshest critics in these dire economic times.

When I ask students to comment on “socialism” they normally say things like “publically minded” or “selfless” or “thinking of the whole instead of yourself.” When I write “capitalism” on the chalkboard the predictable epithets start flowing: “greedy” or “selfish” or what Barack Obama likes to call in various ways “uncaring” (I did manage to hear “opportunity” on one occasion years ago). We spend some time then reading and discussing the “thinking of the whole instead of yourself” philosophers such as Plato, Marx, Rousseau, and Mao. <snip>

Smith is interested in taking stock of human beings and finding out how to both preserve freedom and benefit society within the bounds of our given nature. Justice is there to force good behavior “to a degree” in a capitalist economy but we also need to recognize that the self-preservation instinct is the only dynamic engine for increasing wealth and avoiding poverty. But beneficence, freely given and not forced, serves as another check in the “race for wealth and honors.” It is our common human sentiment says Smith that keeps us from looking “mankind in the face” and claiming that we prefer ourselves to all others.

Read Full Article Here 

I encourage you to read Kaitz’ article in its entirety.  You may find you have a better understanding of the generosity of the capitalist.  And maybe, just maybe after a little further study you may develop a better appreciation for the issues that we agree upon and those we do not.  Maybe capitalism will make a comeback and hopefully soon.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 5, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

It Didn’t Even Take One Day For the Russians to Test America

As the news of our election settles around the world, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev offered the following:

About five minutes into his 90-minute State of the Nation Address, his first since assuming office in May, President Medvedev laid blame for the Georgian conflict in August on the administration of U.S. President George Bush, whose policies he characterized as arrogant, intolerant of criticism, and unilateral.  

Mr. Medvedev says the recent conflict was used as a pretext to bring NATO warships into the Black Sea and to accelerate imposition of a U.S. missile-defense system in Europe. He warned that system would not go unanswered.

The Kremlin leader says Russia will neutralize U.S. missiles, if necessary, by deployment of the Iskander anti-missile system in the Kaliningrad region, which borders Poland and Lithuania. He says the Russian navy and electronic jamming would also be used against any U.S. missiles in Central Europe.

See Full Story  “Russian Leader Blames America for Global Woes” 

The NY Times “Russia Warns of Missile Deployment”

Is this the first test of Barack Obama by the international community?  How will he respond?  Since Barack Obama does not take the oath of office until January 20, 2009, is this the final test of President George W. Bush?  How will President Bush respond?  How will Barack Obama’s response and President Bush’s response differ?  All interesting questions that time will answer.

For a glimpse at Barack Obama’s answer, here is what he said before he was elected President:

Obama YouTube Video — Obama Will Gut the Military

If you wonder if this statement was made during the primaries when he showed his more liberal side, you might want to review Barack Obama’s post election website http://www.change.gov.  Under the homeland security section, he reiterates his statements in this video of achieving a nuclear free world.  Here’s an excerpt from his site:

Barack Obama will show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. Barack Obama fully supports reaffirming this goal, as called for by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, and the specific steps they propose to move us in that direction. He has made clear that America will not disarm unilaterally.

Full Position on Nuclear Weapons

Unbelievable, when I first wrote this post there was a very lengthy page on Barack Obama’s website http://www.change.gov that was devoted to his position on nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament.  Now, less than a week later, his entire change.gov website has been scrubbed and most of the content has been removed.  I guess I should have copied the whole page in my quote above as it is now non-existent on his website.  Luckily, you can still view the YouTube video regarding his thoughts on nuclear disarmament.  You can also still find his positions on nuclear at his original website under Prevent Nuclear Terrorism.

Maybe Russian President Dmitri Medvedev had read Mr. Obama’s website before it was scrubbed and came to his own conclusions regarding Obama’s stance on nuclear weapons.  Regardless, Medvedev’s statements right after the election could not have been a good sign for our President-elect’s nuclear free world stance.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 5, 2008 at 10:31 am

Nov. 4th — A Referendum on American Intelligence or Indictment of Ignorance

Was November 4, 2008 a referendum on American intelligence or an indictment of American ignorance.  In other words was today an affirmation of our intelligence or an affirmation of our ignorance.  At this juncture we cannot tell, but time passes, and we will find out.  From my perspective, I lean toward ignorance rather than intellect, but I will let time pass before casting the final vote.  It seems quite impossible to me that apathy has gotten so bad, that the independent spirit has fallen so far to equivocate a Barack Obama victory to anything less than an indictment on our collective intellect.  For those of you with hope, for those of you who wish to see the change you believe that you will see, let us all see which path we walk over the next four years.

For those who are interested in hearing the intellectual reasons for why I oppose Barack Obama’s Presidency they are as follows:

  • Inexperience — As I researched Barack Obama, I found no substantial legislation that he has proposed, supported or passed that qualifies him for the highest office of the land.  I found no previous positions that he successfully held that had prepared him for the U.S. Presidency.  When we look at his record in Illinois, we find nothing that shows that he has improved the lives of those in his Districts while a State Senator nor those in his state during his brief time working on their behalf in the U.S. Senate.
  • Divisiveness — Senator Obama has presented to the American people in his candidacy someone who will bring us together rather than divide us.  But the best example that we know of publicly regarding divisiveness versus unity is his church.  Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, IL is a dividing religion, not a healing and unifying one.  I have no idea what it is like to be an African American in this country, and I suspect to some degree churches that only open their doors to the African American community should certainly exist.  What I dispute is that these churches exist in unifying African Americans.  Trinity United Church of Christ under its former Reverend consistently preached divisiveness between the African American and white communities.  As a result, I question how Barack Obama could sit in that church for twenty years.  If he is truly a unifier, I just don’t see how Reverend Wright could be acceptable to him, let alone a spiritual leader and like “family.”
  • Naivete — Barack Obama is young, and I am concerned regarding his naivete regarding many parts of the world.  Only time will tell how this affects us.  I will await the time to pass to pronounce the verdict in this area and simply leave it as a concern.
  • Liberalism — Barack Obama has campaigned as a moderate even conservative in some circles, but his record in the Illinois State Senate and U.S. Senate shows a much more liberal individual.  I must admit that I am a registered Independent who is very conservative on fiscal matters, very conservative on government matters (meaning the less or least amount of government we have the better).  In my humble opinion, we have not for a very long time elected someone with such liberal leanings.  In the past those to the far left have not been very successful for the American people.  We will see if Barack Obama rules as the moderate he portrayed on the stump or rules as the liberal he has shown in his acts.  Time of course will tell.
  • The U.S. Constitution — Barack Obama believes our Constitution is a “living” document to be shaped and understood under present day circumstances rather than a contract that should be adhered to and can only change through Amendment.  This was the most import point for me to choose the alternative candidate.

For me, any of these points would be enough for me to lean to the alternative candidate.  For me, all of these points in total should make any American pause and in most cases reject such a candidate.  I welcome those intellectual comments that can help me to see the side of Barack Obama that you see.  I will not print any vitriol here.  I will not publish hateful comments or comments lacking substance.  For those who wish to continue this discourse in an intellectual light, I welcome your comments.

Tonight in his acceptance speech Barack Obama stated that for those whom didn’t vote for him he would be our President too and would listen to us.  Well, this blog is about holding Barack Obama accountable for his words.  This blog was started to investigate his substance versus his rhetoric.  That continues to be my mission.  Today I do not consider him my President.  I’ll chart his progress and mine in this endeavor.

My final thought today is that although I believe our choice today an indictment of our ignorance, I will say it was an inspiring one for emotions.  I acknowledge the history of this day.  I never thought this election was about race, and I never thought Americans would have any problem electing an African American President.  Congratulations President-elect Obama for a truly historic day.  Now make sure your actions match your rhetoric.  You will be held accountable.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 4, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Obama’s Rhetoric — Responsibility, Civility, Come Together and Righteous Winds

For the past week, Senator Obama has basically stuck to the same speech.  While on the stump in Jackonsville today, he made the same pitch.  I take three statements from the stump speech that I find the most interesting:

“We need a return to responsibility and a return to civility.”

“All of us have to come together.”

“We have a righteous wind at our backs.”

I love rhetoric.  I like words just for the sake of words and how they are strung together.  I can be motivated by a good speech and a good speaker, but I always go back and filter the words through my own logical mind in an attempt to try to make sense of the rhetoric.  Today, I take these three statements, and I’ve decided to filter them through the mind of the only public figure we know in Senator Obama’s life, his pastor of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Jeremiah Wright on a return to responsibility and a return to civility.   Was Jeremiah Wright being responsible and civil in his discourse just 5 days after 9/11 occurred when he gave the following sermon in his church:

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.  We have supported state terroism against the Palestinians, the black South Africans, and now we are idignant because the stuff we have done overseas has been brought right back into our own front yards.  Americas’ chickens are coming home to roost.”

Reverend Wright in his Own Words

Now let that sink in for a just a second.  Think about what you were thinking about 5 days after 9/11.  I remember clearly what I was thinking about.  I was truly afraid for the first time.  I was afraid America was under seige.  I took comfort in the fact that the country was rallying together in a common cause.  I took comfort in seeing the images on my TV that showed us as a nation coming together to stand up against the attacks that took place against our innocent citizenry.  Had I heard Reverend Wright’s words at that moment in time, I would have lost some of that comfort and would have become afraid again.  Wright’s words don’t bring us together as a country, his words divide us.  Wright’s words were not responsible, they were not civil to the civilians of this great nation.  Wright’s words were not a righteous wind at the backs of all Americans whom had just witnessed the greatest terrorist attack within our borders.  But Barack Obama must have taken some comfort in those words.  This was his pastor, his spiritual adviser.  Reverend Wright was his man, and Senator Obama didn’t leave this church of divisiveness, not even during the most critical time in our history where we had to come together, where we had to be responsible and civil to one another, where we were required to have a righteous wind at our back to defeat terrorism.  Is 7 years such a long period time that you would forget all of this, that you would choose to follow the words and theology of Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

Does Senator Barack Obama have a righteous wind at his back, or is that wind blowing in a different direction.  When Reverend Wright says:

“God Damn America.  That’s in the Bible.  You’re killing innocent people.  God Damn America for treating her citizens as less than human.  God Damn America.”

Is that the America that you live in?  Is that America that Barack Obama lives in?  Is God Damn America the righteous wind at your back Senator Obama?  Is God Damn America the America of civility and responsibility.  When you sat in this church for 20 years, why didn’t you ever stand up for civility.  Why didn’t you walk out of this church in the name of responsibility?  How does this church bring all Americans together?  How is this church a righteous wind at your back?

Has this church changed?  Is there hope for this church?  20 years have passed since Senator Obama first joined this church.  What has changed is amongst the politics of a Presidential campaign, Senator Obama finally left the church after 20 years of sitting in her pews.  Reverend Wright retired this year from Trinity United Church of Christ and was replaced by Reverend Otis Moss III.  The current history of the church as reported on their website states the following:

Our History

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.”

Before Trinity United Church of Christ became part of this year’s Presidential election, its website went on to say the following:

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the Black Community
  3. Commitment to the Black Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

  1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
  2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
  3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
  4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
  5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
  6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
  7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
  8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
  9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
  10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.”

You will no longer find this second quoted section on their website, but it was there earlier this year when Barack Obama was still a member of this church.  I will not fault a church for bringing together a community based on experiences in this country that I have not suffered myself as a white American.  But I will ask the questions,  is a segregated Christian Church a church that has come together through responsibility and civility to all Americans?  Is this the type of church with a righteous wind at its back as we attempt to elect the first African American to the highest office of our land, the United States Presidency?  I would argue it is not; therefore, I would further argue that Senator Obama’s rhetoric once again is not grounded in the truth of his actions.  It is just another example of telling us what we want to hear through his words which are completely devoid of his actions.

Go vote tomorrow, and vote for someone whom has lived the words that he has spoken.  Let’s bring our nation together again responsibly, civily and from the direction the true righteous wind blows.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 3, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Obama Says “We’ve Got to Have A Civilian National Security Force”

I have to admit that this weekend was my Birthday, so I haven’t been paying attention to Senator’s Obama’s speeches during this last weekend before our general election.  So I thought I’d review something he said earlier this summer which still confuses me.  Earlier this year in a stump speech Barack Obama stated the following:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

Click Here to see this speech.

As is the case with much of Senator Obama’s rhetoric, I find myself asking what the hell does that mean?  I’m not going to be able answer the question what does that mean, but I can offer some further questions regarding the statement to assist you in thinking about the statement itself.

  • Why do we need a civilian national security force?
  • Why can’t we continue to rely on our military to achieve national security?
  • Why would a civilian national security force need to be as well funded as our military?
  • Why wouldn’t we increase funding to our military to achieve national security?
  • Why would a civilian national security force need to be as powerful as our military?
  • Why would a civilian national security need to be just as strong as our military?
  • What possible gain to the American people could there be in establishing and growing a civilian national security force?
  • What is a civilian national security force whose objective is to achieve the national security promoted by our military.

Can you answer any of these questions?  Do you know what he means?  As with much of his rhetoric are you willing to elect Senator Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of American and then find out what he means?  I for one am not.

Now go out and vote on November 4th and ensure that we do not find out what a civilian national security force means.

Written by KJ Kaufman

November 3, 2008 at 3:55 am