Does Obama Think?

In addition to his terrible choices of friends, Barack Obama's life is littered with lies and critical errors in judgement, including extensive drug use, which according to him to helped him 'cope' with an "identity crisis" because he was half black and half-white. If that doesn't say enough, I'll continue...

Let's talk a bit about the drug abuse. His handling of the drug issue was so completely irresponsible it's a huge embarrassment to the U.S. Senate and an affront to America itself. Aiming to avoid the "I did not inhale" criticism heaped upon the eventually impeached Bill Clinton, he irresponsibly proclaimed "I inhaled frequently" as if it were a badge of honor.

This proclamation had nothing to do with "honesty," although many of his leftist media supporters wanted to 'spin' it that way. Rather, it was political pandering at the expense of responsibility.

A standing Senator has a tremendous responsibility to serve the people of the United States - and this goes beyond voting in the Senate. A senator, because of the position itself, will be looked at as a role model to follow. These people should be the ones we look to in society for good examples, not bad ones. As such, if a once rotten apple does get elected into the senate, he should be doubly careful about how he approaches discussing the things he did which were terribly irresponsible in his life. But Obama's virtual "endorsement" of drug use was a terribly irresponsible act. The fact that he was one of the front runners for President at the time of this 'declaration' made matters even worse. It caused partisans in the media to not properly assail the comment - in effect, excusing the action.

Obama could have handled the situation in a way that would have been far more subtle and immensely more responsible. In fact, he should have decided against running for president in the first place - that kind of irresponsible behavior is certainly not something society should promote. It is possible that these drug comments alone did more effect to increase the acceptance of drug abuse than all of the educational programs designed to discourage drug abuse. Indeed, one of the commentators went so far as to say, "it clearly shows that [drug] use has become an acceptable part of our society." What kind of a message does that send?

If a Presidential candidate can be so flippant about drugs, and drug abuse creates no barrier for him to become a viable presidential candidate, and the media then lauds him, and labels a political and irresponsible disclosure as "honesty" with no condemnations - then, really what kind of a message that that send to our society?

Let's note something else for the record. This is really not about the legality or illegality of drugs, insofar as the drugs themselves. But still, we must note Barack Obama was indeed seriously breaking the law with his drug abuse - which is, in and of itself, another problem (in fact, they lock people up for less). But legality aside, far more problematic is the actual irresponsibility of the act and the method of disclosure.

The drug abuse itself shows complete lapses in judgement and demonstrate how Barack Obama deals with problems. And, continuing with such irresponsibility and downplaying the act, almost turning it into a joke or something he was proud of, takes the horrid irresponsibility to new lows. Just terrible, terrible, terrible behavior - especially from a standing U.S. Senator. As Hillary Clinton would say, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Well, Obama is no stranger to such poor judgement and he is also no stranger to lies and double talk. He voted against the recent troop surge in Iraq, saying it could not possibly work. But now, he readily concedes that he was completely wrong. Publicly, he claimed that NAFTA should be dissolved, and then wrote a memo to the Canadian ambassador saying that he only said that for 'public relations' reasons (can anything be more disingenuous?). He staunchly opposed the 2nd amendment, but after the Supreme Court DC vs. Heller ruling, said he supported the 2nd Amendment.

This is a guy who is a smoker and has not been able to quit. Well, what does that say about his strength of character? It might be OK for just 'anyone,' but is this the kind of person we want in our president? Is this who we want to be a role model for our society and our children? Obviously not.

Even his selection of Vice Presidential running-mate was a lousy choice. It is often said that the VP decision is the most important choice a Presidential candidate will make during their candidacy - and he probably couldn't have made a worse choice! He has the golden chance to pick Hillary Clinton and lock up a large section of the vote; such would have given him the absolute best shot at the White House, but he picks....... Joe Biden??? Huh???

This is guy who himself said that Barack Obama was not ready for the presidency (I guess Obama again proved it there). Biden is one of the most divisive and partisan people in politics, he is a foot-in-the-mouth machine, and is entrenched in the Washington establishment. Obama ripped apart his entire message of 'change' with his running-mate choice; is this the way he shows how his actions match his words?? It's laughable! Even Biden himself said that Hillary Clinton would have made a better choice of VP!

In addition to his complete lack of executive experience and being one of the newest members of the Senate, Barack Obama has been a dismal example of a person. From his extensive abuse of drugs (and, importantly, his attitude about it), to his close associations with corrupt businessmen and politicians, to his friendships with known terrorists and radical extremists, to his inability to cope with problems or make good decisions, to his lies and double talk on issues ranging from NAFTA to the 2nd amendment, Barack Obama may indeed be the least qualified and worst candidate ever to run for President in our nation's history.

Obama the Freshman Senator

Let's face the facts. Barack Obama has almost no experience in either government or politics. Worse, he has no experience whatsoever in any executive level position. Obama did serve as a community organizer before he was a legislator - but obviously, that's nowhere near enough.


Now, there is nothing at all wrong with being a community organizer; it's a very admirable thing to do. But, it's not the same type of experience as having executive level job functions, such as being a mayor, governor, military officer, or CEO, for instance. Any candidate for the President should have at least some executive experience; the most suitable generally being a U.S. Governor.

Governors manage borders and have an economic budget which has a model and structure patterned similar to the U.S. and its Constitution. In addition, all the Gubernatorial responsibilities, from serving as Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, to the various state level departments (such as treasury, transportation, etc.) are virtually identical to that of the U.S. In fact, at the level of a state, there are few differences in the job between a governor and the President. Even the scope is similar, being largely irrespective of the population differences - after a certain "critical mass" of population (which all U.S states far exceed), the "interfaces" for the Governor and President (namely the departmental directors) are largely the same.

Still, some senators who have been in the office long enough can acquire indirect experience with executive level responsibilities, even though the nature of the job is quite different. Often, senators who run for the Office of the President will have direct executive experience through military command roles or executive level business positions. Obama, however, has none of these things.

Obama is a freshman senator; just rookie. He only recently started his political career and most of that time has been spent campaigning for President. Being able to shout good rhetoric does not mean anything if there is no substance behind it, and such is true of Obama.

Obama has created no legislation to speak of, and his voting record is extremely thin. And this thin record shows that he votes along party lines more than 97% of the time(!), which means he tends to go along with whatever his party says - in other words, a party stooge.

So, the bottom line? A new freshman senator with no executive experience, almost no track record, no legislation to speak of, and no history of doing much of anything other than being a community organizer. Those are the painful facts.


Additional Notes:
Even his own running-mate, Senator Joe Biden, doesn't think he is ready for the presidency. When asked if Obama was ready to lead, Biden said NO. In fact, Biden elaborated by saying that "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training." Wow. When even his own running mate doesn't think he is ready, there can be no legitimate dispute.

Obama's Lipstick...

On September the 9th, in Virgina, Barack Obama spouted a nasty insult towards America and its policies. When he talked about reform and improving our current system, he proclaimed: "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig..." It was certainly a disgusting comment, but it was all the more nasty because of who it was specifically aimed at.

Almost everybody knew why this comment was especially pointed -- because Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin had made a joke that the difference "between hockey moms and pitbulls" is... "lipstick." Her joke at the Republican National Convention, fresh on the minds everyone following politics, had been a topic of discussion for days and repeated over and over in the news outlets.

The connection was obvious and unambiguous. Right before the comment was made, he was rudely mocking that McCain-Palin would be 'shaking up Washington.' Since reform is a trait that McCain and Palin are known for, he was trying hard to disparage and downplay it. By the greatly elevated crowd reaction, it was clear that everyone in the audience, and everyone who heard his nasty comment, immediately connected it to Sarah Palin. He was taking a stab at Sarah Palin directly, implying that the addition of this woman, or 'lipstick,' to the White House makes no difference.

By making this comment, it is quite obvious that either Barack Obama is exceptionally stupid or he actually meant the insult as it was delivered; there are no other reasonable conclusions. Since everyone else knew immediately this was an insult being cast directly at Sarah Palin, could the Democrat front runner actually be so stupid or out-of-touch that didn't realise that himself?

If we assume that he didn't intend the message in the way that everyone else clearly understood it, then we can only conclude that he is far less intelligent than would be expected of a Presidential candidate. In fact, any person off-the-street would be more intelligent when it came to this specific event. This does not bode well for a candidate who is trying to make the impression that he can handle the politics of such an important position as President, given zero executive experience and a track record of poor judgement and bad personal associations. Add to this that he is a 1st term freshman senator with no legislation, and it's amazing that he would even be 'considered' viable by any American.

If we alternatively assume that he intended the message in the way that everyone clearly understood, then we positively conclude that he's both an insulting misogynist and liar (as he claims that's not what he meant by the comment). But then, we are also further forced to wonder if that's the real reason why he didn't pick Hillary Clinton as VP.

Either way, this comment is just terribly horrible - and it speaks volumes about Obama, his bad ideologies, and his lack of judgement.


Additional Commentary:

If we go one step further and absorb the comment's meaning in the context he used it, we also see exactly what he is posturing in this metaphor: that his idea of 'change' actually means 'fundamental change.' Why is this? Because the comment he made means 'exactly' that.

This comment states that no matter how much you improve a 'thing' it is still going to be that same 'thing;' this was Obama's point. To him, it's not about reform and improving our constitutional republic because it will still be the same 'thing' - a constitutional republic. He wants a 'completely' different system. What kind of system? Well, let's look at his ideologies to discover the answer...

Obama is the most liberal, furthest-left member of the Senate. This means he is as far towards socialism and totalitarianism as one can go in this country (as far as Senators go, and there are plenty of far left Senators). It also means that he believes in a 'liberal' interpretation of the constitution, or in other words, that the constitution is a document that is simply open to change though interpretation; as such, he does not support the principles of the U.S. Constitution as it stands. If you combine these two items, we see clearly the direction that he wants the constitution to change -- towards a large government which embodies totalitarian socialism.

When we combine this and his pattern of associations with radicals, far-leftist organizations, racists, America 'haters,' and corruption including domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and people such as Tony Rezco and Reverend Wright, we get a very clear picture of who he is and what he wants to do.

Given his shady background, radical associations, and hard-left ideologies, Barack Obama may not even be qualified to be an American, let alone an American President. Add in his lack of political experience, terribly poor judgement, and complete absence of executive experience and it makes you wonder how this unsavory and wholly unqualified individual could be the poster child of the Democrat party.