Because there is so much about Barack Obama that I find personally offensive -- things ranging from his friends and religious mentors to his obvious arrogance and his wife -- I have rarely brought up his politics. Partly that’s because his support of leftist policies aren’t all that much different from Hillary Clinton’s or any other liberal in the U.S. Senate, and partly because I tend to think that when electing a president, who must not only serve as head of the executive branch of the federal government but as a living symbol of the country, character and values trumps his position on a handful of current issues.
But that’s not to suggest that issues don’t count. That is particularly true when it comes to such matters as national security, the economy and how best to conduct the war on Islamic terrorism.
In the case of Sen. Obama, there is nothing to suggest that his platform in any way offsets his character deficiencies. For one thing, in spite of history showing us that lowering taxes boosts the nation’s economy, which is only logical, Obama, like every other liberal, wants them raised. Instead of dealing with that salient fact, he promotes class warfare by parroting the Left’s line that lowering taxes only helps the wealthy.
He insists that he was prescient in opposing the invasion of Iraq, but has never said how he would have dealt with Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. Embargos, perhaps? We all saw how well those worked. But I suppose the oil-for-food scandal and Hussein’s bribing France, Germany, Russia and certain mucky mucks at the U.N. with sweetheart oil deals somehow slipped his mind, just as Jeremiah Wright’s racist screeds did.
I’m sure that President Obama would be very respectful of the United Nations, no doubt following their lead when it came to conducting foreign policy. It truly amazes me when people continue pinning their hopes on that corrupt organization when it did nothing to save lives in Rwanda or Darfur, and recently twiddled its thumbs while tinhorn gangster Robert Mugabe hung on to power in Zimbabwe by killing off the opposition.
Speaking of Africa, when are we going to wean the dark continent? Are we ever going to get over this nutty notion that we have an obligation to keep pumping money down that particular sewer? It’s bad enough that George Bush is convinced that billions of American tax dollars -- money that could better be spent trying to cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and ALS -- should be squandered dealing with AIDS in Africa, but Obama has already endorsed the U.N.-inspired giveaway known as the Global Poverty Act. It’s estimated that filling this particular Christmas stocking would run us $845 billion. Worse yet, most of this largesse would wind up in the pockets or Swiss bank accounts of those various thugs, such as Omar al-Bashir, Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo, Isayas Afeworki and the aforementioned Robert Mugabe, who run Africa the way that Al Capone ran Chicago.
Finally, it’s no business of mine how much of their millions Mr. And Mrs. Obama send to his relatives in Kenya, but I see no good reason why the Prelutskys should have to shell out a plugged nickel.