Talk is cheap for the monopolistic headline candidates. The media hoists the candidates with the most bang for their buck to the podium. Then they tell us who is supposed to win each primary. The majority of us accept it because, as Americans, we do as we’re told as long as we don’t have to actually do anything.
When I said “bang for their buck” I refer to those theatrically inspirational icons that spend millions upon millions on advertising campaigns – you guessed it, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
This week I’ll briefly examine Barack Obama and his definition of change. I checked out www.barackobama.com and reviewed U.S. Sen. Obama’s plan for American foreign diplomacy and the so-called “War on Terror.” This is one of the most important issues because those involved are people from Johnson City to Baghdad and everyone in between.
Obama claims on his site, “The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack.”
I won’t completely disagree with this statement because the media has instilled a great deal of fear in the masses by dubbing this “War on Terror” an actual war with a valid enemy. The terrorist, right? (Keep telling yourself that CNN, FOX.)
Humored to the point of hysteria, I imagine your average college student in his or her apartment, living in fear as if Osama bin Laden could appear from the shadows any moment. That statement provides proof for me that Obama plans to continue using fear to both prolong and perpetuate this war.
I continued to read further and was entertained to find that we are also terrified that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of dangerous regimes.
What’s the plan?
Obama promises to collect all the “loose nuclear materials” in the world in four years, preventing any further production of weapons of mass destruction. I’m absolutely sure the world elitist military powers will be more than thrilled to voluntarily hand over nuclear materials and to stop production immediately while we just hang on to ours.
Remember how easy it was for U.N. inspectors to check out Saddam’s pad? Well at least they found something, right?
You’re kidding.
Six years, trillions of dollars deeper into the deficit and, most importantly, thousands of human casualties later, what has truly been accomplished?
The bottom line: It’s not what you say or how good you look saying it. Race, gender or religion should hold little bearing on your endorsement.
Sincere character and a proven track record should be two key factors when examining politicians – especially when their former profession was as a lawyer.
Granted, Obama has great speech writers and charisma to spare. On the contrary, the only changes he and Hillary are capable of making in the White House are changes of race and gender.
A small stint as a business consultant and lawyer, Barack did not enter the national political scene until 2004 when he won a vacant seat in the Senate.
Obama’s inexperience proves he lacks the qualities necessary to lead this country out of this crucial time of recession and widespread corruption.
Next week we’ll look at Hillary and decide why she might not be the best choice either.A

Author