Nov

2

Presidential Vote - Some Thoughts

Filed Under Special Alerts 

My Presidential Election Leanings

I just watched Joe Biden on Fox News, stirring up people to support Obama and himself to help bring American businesses back to America. But businesses go overseas to avoid our high taxes. I believe it is the Democrats who push for higher corporate taxes. Companies reasonably move to countries where they can succeed profitably; they are not obliged to work at a loss to satisfy the government. In any event, I feel urged to say why a vote for Obama-Biden is a vote for more of the same—no change. So here’s my thinking.

Fundamental to choice is a philosophical position. Any reasonable choice must agree with the needs of man. Whoever wants to govern us humans must understand what our human nature really needs. (Now don’t worry, I’m not about to enter into a Hegelian dissertation!)

Look, we’re all saddled with “…in the sweat of your brow will you earn your bread (or whatever)….” But the good part of working for survival by sweat of our brows is that struggle and success also gives a sense of pride in accomplishment. So, with that as my starting point, i.e. the nature of man, I am suspicious of any leader who tries to attract my vote by giving me something without working for it, “spreading the wealth around”. And spreading the wealth is certainly attractive to us humans —getting something— a gift– for nothing. But the gift doesn’t satisfy that basic urgent need of humans, i.e. self-fulfillment through struggle/accomplishment. And of course pandering to our desire for ease and something for nothing always encourages more votes for the politician- promissors.

Our Constitution, a very short document, briefly describes government’s role as a protector and a helper to succeed in our struggle or pursuit of happiness. The Amendments tell us our rights, i.e. to prevent the governors from abusing the power we give them. But nowhere does it promise an idle life. An antithesis of what’s best for human nature is socialism in its various forms, especially Marxism, where government controls the means of production, or the fruits of production, and allots shares according to needs; everybody getting what they need, supposedly. We’re pretty close to that right now.

I find Mr. Obama using the phrase “…the American ‘promise’…”, which looks to me like a substitute for “…the American dream”. BO’s is a phrase of the progressive Herbert Crowly in his “The Promise of American Life”. Crowly’s interest was in examining a real weakness in Democracy, in which we may experience a sort of tyranny of the majority. But others have used Crowly as an invitation to socialism. Crowly himself was never satisfied that he had a solution to the tyranny of the majority problem. Teddy Roosevelt’s nationalism saw in Crowly intellectual support for his foreign policies, how, I’m not sure.. But I believe Crowly didn’t want his ideas so associated. I can’t draw any conclusions from BO’s use of the term “promise”; but elsewhere we see BO’s interest in socialism., recently the meeting with Joe W, and BO’s “spreading the wealth” response.

Certainly one solution to the tyranny problem is socialism of sorts, but socialism is flawed because it tends to ignore that basic human need I mentioned above, i.e. the need for every human to struggle. Obama, like Hillary, tends into socialism, as does the Democratic party in general. After his trip to Europe, one columnist called him an “internationalist socialist”.

Lest I be misunderstood, we are to help one another to succeed but not give them what they must themselves work for.

I’m also interested in BO’s community organizing in the Chicago of radical and professed Communist Saul Alinsky, of c. 1960s. ACORN immediately comes to mind. And BO was heavily involved in ACORN in spite of the denials. ACORN has a dubious mission.

Obama exudes self-confidence, is very bright, seems to learn fast, and is eloquent. One researcher mentioned that Obama has acknowledged he knows he can mold an audience by his speech. (Don’t quote this, because I don’t remember the exact words.) Change is what he promises. But his history of promoting change is negative. For example, as Illinois senator he remained silent when attempts were made to change the corruption rampant in Cook County under the president of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Stroger, notorious for cronyism and patronage, involving misuse of taxpayer funds. (My Illinois home county was the adjacent DuPage County.) David Freddoso’s The Case against Barack Obama in chapter 1 provides the above information.

(I search to test the reliability of e.g. Freddoso and similar exposes and haven’t found any reference there to Freddoso so far.)

BO’s association with and support from Tony(?) Rezko, Wm. Ayers, J. Wright, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan (the last four who preach black liberation theology of James H. Cohn) raises doubts in my mind. He “owes” these people for their support. Does he think that he can just use them now but then, as president, ignore them? I think he’s obliged to reward them or their friends with appointments. And recent things he’s said, v.g. that encounter with Joe the plumber, tells me he agrees with the direction the above men want.

I hear constantly that his attachment to the above people is nonsense, to be brushed off; not to be taken seriously, mere desperate attempts by a failing McCain campaign; “guilt by association”, they scoff. (I’d like to ask the paid talking heads if they personally believe some of the statements they enunciate with such conviction.)

There is something really very wrong in the push to ignore common sense, the common sense we normally apply when we judge people by their friends. Instead we are ridiculed if we ask reasonable questions. When a lie or half-truth is repeated enough, we’re inclined to give in and accept it as truth. Almost a mammoth cover up, orchestrated by whom? We know only a bit in depth about Obama, and, if we attempt to dig deeper into his associations and activities, we get smirks and “are you kidding?” responses.

Similarly we are urged to see in McCain just another four years of Bush-ism. McCain says he wants to initiate change in government, and I am willing to let him try since he has a record of trying. I disagree with him on several issues, but I think I know where he really stands on the most important issues. Pretty good match between words and deeds.

Two other concerns of mine are Islamic fascism/terrorism and a total Democratic government with minimal checks and balances likely, if BO is elected.

I have studied Islam from their beginnings in the early 7th century onward and I have an elementary knowledge of Arabic—reading and writing. Because of the fanatic influence of the Wahhabis’ (perhaps an unfair attribution) in Saudi Arabia and Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and their interpretation and teaching of the Koran and Mohammed, many American Muslims fear to oppose the zealous terrorists, even in America. You’ve seen the recent “honor killings” by several American Muslim fathers. Manifestly, intolerant Muslims aim to replace our Constitution with Sharia, which is frightening.

And I see virtually no attention focused on the problem by the media. Fox News has aired 2 programs in the past 6 months that I am aware of; gutsy, revealing programs. Radical Islam typically inserts itself where there is social and religious turmoil and weakness. Obvious examples are the nations of Africa. And we are today very weak, ripe for the picking.

So this is just one issue that our government must deal with. And it is possible that a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Executive branch may, in the interest of “getting along” and “multiculturalism”, fall easy prey to Islamic insistence on admitting sharia (law). Extremist Muslims believe that God wills/demands there be but one religion and guiding law, namely Mohammedanism and the law based upon the Koran and the early Traditions. And nothing trumps “God wills it”; so why bother with negotiations. Ahmadinejad comes to mind.

In addition, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi together with BO would have a golden opportunity to ram through pet Democratic programs that Republicans could not stop, because there would be little or no balance of power. I won’t bore you by repeating the programs.

I also have questions about BO’s ideas on immigration, plus lots of other stuff. He is very liberal and seldom if ever votes contrary to his party. I need to know more about him; but the media avoids the big questions. Maybe in another four years we’ll know more him and we might see fit to elect him. His deeds are minimal, his words are plentiful. Would his deeds match his promises?

But now I couldn’t possibly vote for such an inexperienced and questionable man to lead us.

I have laid out some of my thoughts and will gladly consider your criticisms, positive or negative. Kind of a political discussion. Time is short. Vote.

John McNellis for Plainfield Taxpayers Alliance.

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.