Obama and stem cell research

I promised after Barack Obama's election that when he did something right I'd acknowledge it, and even though, in this case, it's a reversal of something George W. Bush did, I have to say I support his action. As much as I generally approve of the Bush presidency, it remains a fact that on issues of interest to the religious right, Bush absorbed their policies. (I don't say he "gave in to them" because I think he genuinely believed they were right.)

So, on this issue, I have to side with Obama. On anything that separates the pursuit of scientific knowledge from the dogmatism of the religious right, I must go with science. And removing the Bush restrictions on stem cell research was the right thing to do.

O'Malley and other death penalty opponents

Recently, Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, tried unsuccessfully to get the legislators in Maryland's General Assembly (what they call the state legislature in this state) to abolish the death penalty. Fortunately he did not get his way; the legislators made it more difficult to levy (with an eye toward preventing executions on insufficient proof of guilt) but defeated total abolition of the death penalty. (See this article.)



Frankly, I cannot understand death penalty opponents. Allowing murderers to live says to the world that the life of the murderer is more valuable than the lives of murder victims. The murderer did nothing to spare the victims' lives; why should he be considered worthy of living, when he gave no such considerations to their lives?



Martin O'Malley is a Roman Catholic, of course, and he echoes his church's position on the death penalty. But just as I oppose having the Government follow the teachings of the Catholic Church (or any other religious group) on such topics as abortion, I must take O'Malley to task for trying to install Catholic Church opinion on the death penalty as State law.



And death penalty opponents who base their opposition on moral grounds, rather than on the teachings of one or another religious denomination, simply cannot explain in any way that will convince me why they consider, as I said earlier in this post, the murderer's life more valuable than the lives of his victims.

Arlen Specter - the Senator I admire most

I must admit that I have long followed the career of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, though I am not a constituent of his. But I did, briefly, live in Philadelphia, just as Sen. Specter was district attorney there, and I was then impressed by his uprooting of corruption there. And since then, I've seen him as a force for the things I believe in in the Senate seat he's held for many years.

I was recently impressed by his handling (together with the two Maine Senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) of the "stimulus bill" issue. Rather than just saying "no" as the other Senate Republicans did, he was able to have significant modifications to the bill. It didn't make it a bill Republicans could be really happy about, but it made it a better bill. And it agitated the Pelosi far-left Democrats no end -- that three Republicans could have more input into the bill than the Democratic majority in the House could stomach. It shows how a pragmatic approach can make even a minority a force to reckon with. And I applaud Sen. Specter for it.

"First Freedom First" - a comment on a book

Recently I began reading a book entitled "First Freedom First," by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the thesis of which is that it is important to maintain the constitutional separation of church and state. And this is a position which merits agreement from me. But in it, the Religious Right is castigated with the following words on p. xxvi of the Introduction:

The Religious Right claims an interest in recovering morality in America by seeking to outlaw all abortions, stem cell research, gay rights, and same-sex unions while advocating the teaching of religious doctrine as sound science. They also advocate, through a system of school vouchers often lauded as a way to help the poor, providing public tax dollars for the funding of public parochial schools. In recent years, the Religious Right has been loud in its advocacy for advancing the president's faith-based initiatives, displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings, teaching the Bible in public schools, electing "God-chosen" leaders to public offices, and supporting the president of the United States in sopeaking and acting as the chief religious leader of the nation. However, the Religious Right has been strangely silent on the war in Iraq, increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance, the torture of prisoners, ... [I leave out the rest of this sentence, because it is really the part I quote here that I want to address]

When I read the first two of these sentences, I was willing to accept what Gaddy (the author of this introduction) says. But then I hit the third sentence. Obviously, Gaddy (I can't speak for Lynn, as he didn't write these words, but if he is willing to have his name on the book as co-author, I can't imagine he disavows them) seems to think that one of the purposes of his book is to advocate for our having left Saddam Hussein in power to gas the Kurds and threaten Israel with missiles, for our adoption of a socialized-medicine scheme (because most people talking about "increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance" seem to advocate such schemes), etc. And with this sentence he lost me.

What in the name of all that matters in this universe do "the war in Iraq" and "increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance" have to do with religious freedom? And what business do these points have in a book on preserving our First Amendment rights?

Up till that sentence, I might have favorably reviewed this book. But it is clear that Gaddy and Lynn have their own ideology to pursue, not merely advocating a religiously-neutral, even secular, government (with which I concur), but a left-wing, even socialistic political agenda. And with that I take issue.

Intelligent Design and Evolution: Does it have to be one or the other?

Just this morning I was reading a book in which it was clear that the author believes that the only way that evolution can have occurred is by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection, and derides the concept of intelligent design along with creationism. I believe that it is a grievous mistake to say that you can't have both evolution and intelligent design.


For some reason, the evidence for evolution that we have has been taken to be evidence for the concept that evolution occurred via one specific mechanism: random mutations followed by survival of the fittest (i. e. natural selection). I would like to see any basis for distinguishing this mechanism from an alternative, which I maintain is firmly within the framework of intelligent design:


There is a God who controls this world, but rather than a de novo creation of new species, His mechanism is to see what His creations are like, and make modifications toward a goal. In other words, it is not blind chance, but intelligent tinkering, that drives evolution.


Now, no scientific investigation can prove my hypothesis, but in fact I believe that none can disprove it, either. I would challenge any Dawkinsian atheist to give me one piece of scientific evidence that can be used successfully to refute my hypothesis. I don't think there can be any.


Now the point can be made that science proceeds only by investigating testable hypotheses, and that the hypothesis I have formulated is not testable. I maintain that the real point is that the hypothesis of the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations followed by survival of the fittest is no more testable than mine. So, in fact, science cannot dismiss intelligent design out of hand, and the two hypotheses (intelligent design and Darwin's natural selection mechanism) are of equal status; they both have to be considered speculative philosophy rather than science.


Note that nothing that I have said here denies the factuality of evolution, so do not call me a creationist. My point is that, even given acceptance that evolution has occurred in the past and probably continues to occur, one cannot dismiss the idea of intelligent design out of hand.



So please let us have some sense here. Arguments for evolution (which I accept!) do not prelude intelligent design. And they no more prove the Darwinian mechanism than the fact that 2+2=4 proves that all numbers are even. Let's be honest about this.

Generations

A recent comment on my posts regarding Michael Steele referred to him in generational terms, and called for splitting the "baby-boomer" generation, because the generation that Steele (and Obama, Palin, etc.) belongs to is really different in kind from the baby-boomer generation of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I can't say this surprises me, because I've thought about this classifying of people into generations, though mostly about the earlier era where I belong. And I feel I've also been generationally misplaced.


The classic generation book is a book called "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. And in Strauss and Howe's book, I'm in the Silent Generation, just before the Boomers (Strauss & Howe just calls then by that name, not "Baby" Boomers) and just after the G. I. Generation, that fought in World War II. But this generation, according to Strauss and Howe, begins with people born in 1925. And I don't think that a person born in the late 1920s (who was a teenager in World War II, just a bit too young to fight, but old enough to be well aware of what was going on) had the same type of experiences as I had (V-J Day, when WWII ended, was just before my 3rd birthday, so I have no memories of WWII, but my teenage years were during the hottest part of the Cold War, with a prosperous economy, but shelter drills in school, and Russian spies suspected of being everywhere. Perhaps the "Cold War Generation" describes my age cohort. But it's certainly not the same as the earlier Silents in Strauss & Howe's classification.


So from right after I read Strauss & Howe's book, I thought that a shorter period, perhaps half of a Strauss & Howe generation, really defined an age cohort. And the comment about Michael Steele and his contemporaries fits my thoughts, so I feel vindicated in my classifications.

Michael Steele, and those who oppose him

Someone posted a comment to my posting about Michael Steele, in which he called Steele a RINO and linked to a site in which Steele was attacked by a certain Steve Deace, a commentator on a station in Iowa, who attacked Steele.

Trying to find out something about this Deace, I found a blog post that said:

Steve Deace, the 1040 WHO commentator, should be donning a "Religious Bigot" t-shirt soon. A few weeks ago, he said that someone should send him a shirt that says, "Religious Bigot" on it because that is what it means today to be a believing Christian.

Back in 2004, as a sports commentator, he argued that Shawn Green (who is Jewish) should convert to Christianity so that he could play baseball on Judaism's holiest day, Yom Kippur.
I don't know if he ever apologized for it. More recently, he has picked most prominently on homosexuals, referring to them crudely as people who "have anal sex."

I don't think Christianity makes anyone a religious bigot, but Deace has certainly shown that a self-described Christian certainly can be one. If Deace wants the moniker, who am I to disagree?

So, I designed and sent him a shirt with the words "Religious Bigot" emblazoned on the front and back in red with red sleeves. He says it "looks awesome." I think it looks embarrassing. If you know a religious bigot who needs one, follow the link below, and you can send them their own Steve Deace "Religious Bigot " T.

If this is Steve Deace, it is clear that he stands for everything I oppose. And if Steve Deace opposes Michael Steele, that's one more reason to support Steele!

Michael Steele - the new Republican National Chairman

Michael Steele was just chosen to be the new Republican National Chairman. And I think it was a good choice.

Two years and some months ago, I voted for Steele to be the United States Senator for Maryland. And he was not elected, which was a disappointment, but not a great surprise, in a rather "blue" state. But I think he was qualified for the Senate then, and he is even more qualified for the RNC position now, since, among his past experiences, he has served as the state chairman of the GOP in Maryland.

In a country where 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama, the Republican Party (which was the party that freed the slaves!) is often alleged to be hostile to anyone that is not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christian. This is a fallacy; the GOP believes in equality, and has only been hostile to the idea of reserving certain government positions for specific ethnic/gender people. When African-Americans (or any other people) are good enough for a post, Republicans will endorse such people. They have shown that with such examples as former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and now once more with former Lieutenant Governor (and candidate for the Senate) Michael Steele. It is not true that the GOP is racist; only that it will not deliberately choose unqualified minority candidates without a reason. Michael Steele is clearly, like Condoleezza Rice, a well-qualified person, whose election will help the RNC.

Choosing someone just for his/her racial/ethnic/gender background is bad. But while I'm sure that Steele got some votes because the GOP was burned by Obama's victory and wanted to appeal to African-Americans, the difference between the parties was shown by the fact that he was chosen because he was qualified. It's not like Bill Clinton's choice of Janet Reno for Attorney General, where he was so eager to choose a woman that nothing else mattered, and as soon as one woman had problems he made sure to nominate another woman.

The new presidential cycle

Today, as happens every fourth January 20, we inaugurated a new President: Barack Obama. Those who follow this blog know that he was not our choice; if we had our way, it would have been John McCain taking the oath of office today. But the people of the United States decided differently, and ours is a constitutionally-governed nation, so for the next four years, Barack Obama will hold the office of President of the United States.


Under our constitution, a newly elected President is given four years to make his mark, and cannot be removed earlier by a vote of no confidence in the way prime ministers are in parliamentary systems. The only way to remove a President is to impeach, and no President has ever been removed that way. (Only one has even been obliged to resign due to the serious threat of an impeachment; sadly, this was someone who had actually been one of our best Presidents). So for better or for worse, the next four years will see our policy decisions made by Barack Obama.


One characteristic of our system, though, is that while the losing side does not have a lot of power, it does have the right to criticize the President. And this we promise. In the next four years, as stated just after the election over 2 months ago, we retain the right to be critical of President Obama's actions, but when he does something good, we will certainly give him the credit.


So far, Obama's done nothing much but make appointments, and he has been pretty good up to now. We will have to follow very closely what he chooses to do in that rôle— we await his actions.

The myth of "the Palestinian people"

Once more, Arabs are killing Israelis in the Middle East. And some of those Arabs are actually getting support from the outside world under the pretense of the need for the "Palestinians" for their own homeland! History tells us that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian," so who are these "Palestinians" who claim the right to a homeland?

First of all, let it be made clear that until 1948 nobody anywhere claimed to be a "Palestinian." If you had asked the ancestors of today's murderous Arab terrorists their nationality in those early days, they might have said "Arab," or perhaps "Syrian," or going back earlier, "citizen of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire," but nobody in those days ever called himself a "Palestinian." The only people who even used the word "Palestine" to describe the territory were the British and — oddly — the Jews! (The name "Israel" had not yet been chosen, and the Jews were trying to decide on a name for it!)

There has never been an indigenous people in the area who called this territory "Palestine." The earliest people we know of in the region were the Canaanites, who lived there before Moses led the Jewish people out from Egypt. When the Jews settled there, it became "Judea." The name "Palestine" ("Palaestina" in Latin) was given to this territory by the Romans, when they defeated the Jews in battle and took over the land. (They gave the territory this name so they could claim it was not the Jews' land; the name came from the name of the Philistines, a people whose land was nearby. From the Wikipedia description of their territory, it would appear that a small portion of present-day Israel was inhabited by the Philistines; most of their territory was in today's Gaza Strip.) And from then until 1948, the territory was somebody's colony; the last two countries to control the territory before 1948 were the Turks and the British.

In 1918, the British took this territory away from the Turks, and first established a territory known as Palestine, which they governed under a mandate from the League of Nations. In August 1922, the Palestine mandate was split into two; one part was called "Transjordan," and is today the Kingdom of Jordan. So when someone speaks of "Palestine," it is not really clear whether they mean 1918-22 Palestine (which includes Jordan) or 1922-1948 Palestine (which does not).

In any case, "Palestine" in the 20^th century simply was a term for the British mandated territory. Some Arabs in the area wanted it all incorporated in one pan-Arab state that included such current nations as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Others wanted smaller nations; most considered that this territory would belong to a greater Syria that would include today's Lebanon and Iraq. But nobody considered Palestine (in either the 1918-1922 version or the 1922-1948 version) a nation in its own right.

In 1947, the United Nation passed a resolution dividing this 1922-1948 version of Palestine (which was only a third of the 1918-1922 version!) into two parts, which it might be noted were simply referred to as a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state." Nobody envisioned, even then, the Arab state as being called "Palestine" — that was still just a name for the British colony!

But in any case, the Arabs were not satisfied with just a piece of the Palestine mandate; they wanted it all. So they started a war with the Jews, and by the time the fighting ceased, the Jews ended up with slightly more territory than the UN had awarded them in 1947. This became the State of Israel.

For a number of years, the Arabs kept picking wars with Israel; the Jews kept winning those wars. And ultimately, the Arabs invented a new myth: the myth of a "Palestinian people" evicted from their land by the Israelis. There never was such a thing; there were Arabs, no different in any way from their neighbors in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who thought of themselves as one group, and since the boundaries between these nations had been created by the British and French after World War I, the national identities of these people were not very strong. But by inventing this "Palestinian" nationality, they came up with a group that needed its own homeland, or so they proclaimed.

But who are these "Palestinians"? The people of a national group have something in common. The French speak French, and differ from the French-speaking Swiss and Belgians by having had allegiance to a government that has existed for centuries. The Swiss speak four different languages, but these people signed a constitutional document that bound them together in 1848, and so they have built themselves a nation (In fact, of course, groups of what now are Swiss had bound themselves into a nation in the 13^th century, so they can be considered to have been building this nation for that long!) I challenge anyone to define a "Palestinian" for me -- neither language, nor religion, nor anything else defines a "Palestinian," except that it is an Arab who happened to have been governed by the British mandatory authority between 1922 and 1948 or a descendant of such a person. This hardly defines a nationality!

The Jews are united by religion. The Canadians are united by history; they have built a nation since 1867. But in no sense can the "Palestinians" be united as a people. Let us just avoid this word "Palestinian" — it is totally meaningless!

That time of year -- I hate it!

Right now we are in the time of year that I hate the most. I wish I could go into hibernation from the day after Thanksgiving until New Year's Eve. Why do we have to endure it?


First of all, as I've said, I'm Jewish, so Christmas is not my holiday. But I don't begrudge Christians' celebration of the birth of the founder of their faith (though, historically, it seems a matter of record that he wasn't really born in late December; the Romans simply co-opted a day that was already a holiday and renamed it). The problem is when they try to involve me in their celebration. Please leave me alone!


It seems as if at this time of year we are bombarded by three kinds of music, and I'll list them in increasing order of their unpleasantness:

1. General winter stuff, like "Winter Wonderland," "Jingle Bells," and Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride." This isn't really Christmas music, so it doesn't bother me as much as the other two; I just wonder why anyone would want to be reminded that it's the winter season, with its cold, wind, and even snow!




2. Then there is the "secular Christmas" music -- things like "Silver Bells," which don't mention Jesus but keep the Christmas theme. I suppose this is the Christians' way of trying to make us feel more at home (and one can even argue that Irving Berlin, who wrote "White Christmas," was Jewish!) But my response to those people is simply this: "When you get rid of the first six letters of the name of that holiday, call me. Until then, keep away from me!"




3. And finally, the religious carols, from "Silent Night" to "Adeste Fideles," and on down the whole list. Sing them in your church, in your home, or at private gatherings. I no more want to hear them than I want to be proselytized by your clergy.

So, repeating again, Please leave me alone!

Judge Currie is right on target

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie has ruled that the State of South Carolina must hold off its plans to issue special license plates with the words "I Believe" and a cross. Judge Currie is right on target.

When such symbols and words appear on a State-issued license plate, they constitute an establishment of Christianity by the State of South Carolina. If a driver wants to advertise his Christianity, let him buy a bumper sticker and stick it on his car. But the State has no business issuing such plates.

What part of "no establishment of religion" do the South Carolina legislators that approved such a plate not understand?

He's actually doing some things right!

Anyone reading this blog must be aware that my thoughts on Barack Obama prior to this election were extremely negative. So I have to admit that I'm surprising myself with this post, under the title "He's actually doing some things right!" Yes, President-elect Obama is actually doing some things right: I'm talking about his appointments to date.

He's made a number of appointments lately, and some of them (like Pres. Bush's Defense Secretary to continue in office) are positively mind-boggling, given Obama's remarks about Bush's war policies! But one thing they all have in common: Whether I've heard of the person or not, every one is competent for the position which he was picked for. This is quite a contrast with the last two Democratic presidents. Carter picked — to head the anti-drug program — a doctor who was reprimanded by his medical association for improperly prescribing drugs! And in general, Carter tended to appoint people he knew from Georgia, regardless of competence; of course, Carter liked to micro-manage everything, so one might say it didn't matter much who he appointed, because he'd call the shots anyway himself! Clinton was so obsessed with naming a female attorney general — regardless of qualifications — that it took him three tries, and the one who made it, Janet Reno, made a botch of the Elián Gonzalez case. Some of Obama's appointments may be questionable for some reasons, but competency isn't the reason for my doubts on any of them.

The choice of Hillary Clinton

It seems that Hillary Clinton is President-Elect Obama's choice for Secretary of State, and, to my surprise, she wants the job. If I were in her place, I wouldn't:

1. Secretaries of State used to be considered, in the 19^th century, prime prospects for the Presidency. However, there hasn't been a Secretary of State who moved up to the Presidency since James Buchanan (and there hasn't been any Cabinet secretary who moved up to the Presidency since Herbert Hoover).




2. Hillary Clinton seemed to have a promising future in the U. S. Senate. But she needs to develop some seniority there to become an important Senator. Moving into the Cabinet short-circuits this path.




3. Pres.-Elect Obama is an independent-minded man, whose ideas on foreign policy differ from Sen. Clinton's in many ways. However, in the Cabinet, she has to put forward his policies, and not proclaim her own. She will be in Obama's shadow.

I wonder what Obama is thinking in making the offer. But even more, I wonder what Hillary Clinton is thinking in accepting it!

The first actions of President-Elect Obama

Earlier, we said that when President-Elect Barack Obama does something supportable, we will support it, and when he does something bad, we retain the right to criticize him. And it seems he's done some of both in his first days since the election.

On the positive side, he's shown some definite willingness to work with those who opposed him, having meetings with President George W. Bush about the transition and with Senator John McCain to identify points of shared interest, and (the most honorable thing he's done) emphasizing that he did not want the Senate Democrats to strip Sen. Joseph Lieberman of his committee chairmanship. Sen. Lieberman, a Democrat who lost his party's nomination in Connecticut but won as an independent, has been a loyal Democrat on most issues but worked hard against Sen. Obama's candidacy, and it is a good sign that Obama did not bear a grudge.

On the negative side, his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff is not a good sign. Emanuel is a vicious Chicago-machine politician, who once sent a campaign opponent a dead fish, and he's also associated strongly with the corrupt Bill Clinton administration.

And it's not certain how to rate Obama's choice of Eric Holder as attorney general. Holder seems to be well-qualified, but he was part of Bill Clinton's last-minute pardoning of Marc Rich and some Puerto Rican nationalists in his role as deputy attorney general. He deserves to be questioned intensely, particularly about Marc Rich. But he may be simply someone who went along with what his boss, the President, wanted. So the jury is still out on this one.

Sarah Palin's future

People are putting forth the idea that if Ted Stevens is re-elected, but expelled from the Senate because of the scandals, Gov. Sarah Palin should be put in that Senate seat. Certainly she is ideologically more religious-right that I would favor, but if she does become a Senator, by the time of the 2012 election she will be better-qualified than Barack Obama was this year, with more experience in the Senate plus some executive experience as Governor. And if she does as good a job in the Senate as she apparently has as Governor, she will be hard to beat for the nomination.


There are a lot of "if"s in that, though. I'm certainly not advocating Sarah Palin as the GOP candidate for the Presidency in 2012. I'd prefer to see someone more moderate, someone in the mold of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain this year. I do think she'd be an attractive candidate, with a lot going for her, particularly if by that time the then-sitting President Barack Obama becomes as unpopular as George W. Bush is at the moment.


In any case, Gov. Palin would bring a lot of new energy to the Senate if she is chosen. And with the low spirits of the party, perhaps we need that.

The result of the election

This will be the last post with a label "2008 election" on this blog. The election is over. and the people have spoken. And in our tradition, we have to accept the result, for the next 4 years. As John McCain said in his gracious concession speech, Barack Obama is our President, beginning in 2½ months.


As I said in my last post, the United States survived Bill Clinton; it will survive Barack Obama. I'm not going into mourning for this country; and I'm not closing this blog. (It is not intended as just a John McCain blog; I started it before I knew who the candidates would be in 2008, and my first choice wasn't even McCain, though I was happy enough to support McCain once he became the obvious front-runner for the nomination.)


I retain the right to criticize President-Elect Obama when I think he is wrong, just as many others have criticized our current President when they have thought he is wrong. I also retain the right to support him whenever I think he is doing the right thing, though I doubt that will happen very often; this is not like a Parliamentary system such as Great Britain's, where "the duty of the opposition is to oppose."


John McCain joins a group of people I have felt should have been President but didn't make it. Some, like Bob Dole, at least made it as far as their party's nomination, as McCain did this year. Others, including Arlen Spector, Bob Dole's wife Elizabeth, George Romney, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and my own political hero, Nelson A. Rockefeller, never even got the nomination. Any of these might have made an excellent President, if the American people had chosen him or her for the job. (You note that all the men and women I have mentioned were Republicans, though Kirkpatrick started her career in the Democratic Party. This is no coincidence. I've rarely seen a Democrat I could support. Jimmy Carter, one of the few Democrats who wasn't too far to the political left for me, was too politically naïve for the job, and made a most incompetent President.)


It should be obvious to all who have read this blog that I believe that the people chose wrong. It seems that the economic meltdown came at just the wrong time; McCain had been starting to move upward in the polls and if there had not been such an economic collapse, I might be today cheering the public's choice of John McCain as our President-Elect. But the 2008 election is over. I hope I will still be alive in 2012 when, I'm sure, the people will choose a new President better qualified and more worthy.

Three days from now, Election Day

... and the polls show Obama far ahead. I hope they're wrong, and it's 1948 all over again; we'll see on Wednesday. But I have to assume they're going to be right, and the American public will misguidedly vote to put in the man I feel is the worst candidate a major party has offered since George McGovern in 1972.



This country will survive. It survived the Presidency of Bill Clinton, and it will survive the Presidency of Barack Obama. (Obama will be worse, but this country has amazing strength in the face of disaster.)



One of two things will happen. Either Obama will be able to push through the radical socialist changes he wants, or he won't. If he does, the American public will see how bad his ideas are, and a new Newt Gingrich will arise in 2010, as the first one did in 1994, on a "Contract with America" type of platform, and Obama will find himself with a hostile Congress in the second half of his term. If he doesn't, the American public will see him as just another smooth-talking politician offering to change the world but unable to do so, and he will not be able to win a second term. So either in 2010 or 2012, the pendulum will swing the other way.



I just hope I'll be alive to see it!

Colin Powell and Barack Obama

Yesterday, General Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency. While this endorsement made me no more inclined to support Obama than beforehand, it has caused me to rethink my opinion of Gen. Powell.

I had, up to this point, thought of Gen. Powell as a fine patriotic American, who put his country first. In fact, as someone like Sen. John McCain. His endorsing someone as bad for America as Sen. Obama can only mean that Gen. Powell puts his race, not his country, first. I cannot see any other reason why Gen. Powell would back a man whose opposition to everything Gen. Powell has fought for is so patent.

On top of all, some of his reasons for rejecting McCain in favor of Obama are ludicrous — Gov. Sarah Palin may be low in qualification, but nothing that can be said about her doesn't apply to Sen. Obama just as well, and she is only running for the vice-presidency, not the presidency, so Obama's inexperience is more serious.

Up until yesterday, I might have considered a future Colin Powell candidacy for the Presidency as worthy of support; as of yesterday's endorsement, I could not consider supporting Gen. Powell for anything in the future. Anyone who can endorse Barack Obama in this way has forfeited the right to the support of anyone who is truly in favor of America's best interests.

Last night's debate

Some observations on last night's debate:

1. Obama could not get away from attacking George W. Bush. If he had been forced to avoid the phrase "failed policies of the past eight years," he would have been totally tongue-tied.


2. McCain didn't hit that point enough. Once he said ,"If you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run 4 years ago." Major point, but he should have emphasized this more.


3. Obama needs to be pushed on his associations with Ayers, and with other questionable characters, more. Obama denies that this is an issue, but it bears on the major issue: "Can we trust Barack Obama with the Presidency of the United States?"