G Wiz
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: OBAMA or McCAIN? READ THIS FIRST! |
 |
|
Here's the Democratic record based on historical events. There's no spin and
you can check the facts easily.
Please pass this message on, if you can, and vote.
WAR and CONFLICT:
FIRST AND ONLY ATOMIC BOMB ever used in battle was used by Democrats:
Critics believe a detonation away from population and an attempt at
diplomacy could have been displayed elsewhere with the cities (Hiroshima &
Nagasaki) being bombed as an ultimatum. It was poorly planned. Not much
invention or thought for alternative action and reaction.
THE USS COLE incident:
Seventeen dead, thirty nine injured. (Clinton's foreign policy and
action/inaction did not prevent this tragedy). Talking their way into and
out of this one did not work for Clinton's agents. Yemeni declared jihad
rather than cooperation and discussion.
DIPLOMACY (or lack of) and FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
On world affairs and Obama's popularity:
Know that in almost every foreign country where Barack's popularity is
promoted . . . those countries are not even remotely conservative, nor have
they ever been, or are they ever likely to be. Many of those countries are
unstable or, in some cases, they are everything from socialistic,
nationalistic, dictatorships, to a variety of political governments that you
yourself may find trouble with.
Sometimes this never changing political pattern is seen in ethnic
neighbourhoods unwilling to experience alternative politics, sticking with
the closest resemblance that they know. They may also stay with the party
that brought them to the country as an immigrant. Political parties can and
do creatively use immigration to boost their voting numbers.
If Obama's politics or popularity jibes with countries that are so different
from America it is not always in your best interest. Popularity for Obama
doesn't necessarily mean a vote for America.
Side note: Israeli's presently favour McCain over Obama in a recent poll.
Perhaps, Republican peace talks have once again made an impression.
a) Cuba- Kennedy's failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban crisis (yet to
be resolved) stemmed from the Democrats' failure to win politically and
militarily.
b) Vietnam- the unpopular War. Democrats falsified casualty numbers to give
the impression that the War was being won. The casualty numbers far exceed
those of Iraq. With the draft, as in the Second World War, soldiers became
more expendable with lack of direction, lack of knowledge, and lack of
experience. Too much trial and error. It was another Democratic failure.
Students were taken from school. Jobs were lost. Relatives and friends went
missing not only in war, but also by draft dodging. Protests increased, drug
abuse thrived, and violence occurred throughout the U.S. It was ugly and not
diplomatic in any terms. Chicago's 1968 riots, for example, reflected
anti-Vietnam feelings of the day. The Government in power was, you guessed
it, Democratic.
Similar events happened; forgotten by those who knew of them, forgiven by
others, and these events later became under-represented by today's younger
Democrats. The hawkish Democratic Party depends on your forgiveness and
forgetfulness. It ramps up it's movement as being the totally opposite good
Party, the peaceful dove, and piles blame on the opposition. Talk about spin
and flip flop! Ask the world who has experienced the Democrats' wrath and
so-called diplomacy.
For some illogical reason, we now see the same crowd that two generations
ago protested against the Democrats' injustice and wrong doings, including
the Vietnam War, with some of their offspring, including the college crowd
(tip: hire liberal educators), and they are supporting the very Party that
began all the troubles, and the now Liberal media? Media misrepresented and
Democrat Walter Cronkite was chewed out by LBJ for releasing true Vietnam
casualty figures?
Democrats never forgot or discuss how they poorly mismanaged the Vietnam
War. It seems like the public has forgotten. Democrats generally do not
support Republican global conflicts and continue to mimic blame.
The Democratic voter now, curiously, includes the races and flower power
generation that was chastised by earlier Democrats. Sure, there were Nixon
protests, but they and the War were inherited.
Democrats are indirectly responsible for earlier conscripted poor folk and
minorities shoved towards the front line. Go figure!? Don't buy this? Check
it out. It happened. It happens in other countries as well.
Some of these protestors have hypocritically become Liberal Broadcasters
and Democratic Politicians. That alone is enough to put my faith in their
decision. Not really.
Democrats did little or nothing to help Vietnam Vets upon return. Democrats
also blew chances to improve many much talked about G.I. bills while Clinton
was in office. Obama now talks the talk.
c) Iran yesterday and today - Jimmy Carter brought on this problem by his
policies that suggested that Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini was a good thing for
human rights, considering the alternative corrupt and inhumane rulers of the
day.
Carter paid for it. Americans were taken hostage. A poorly planned failed
rescue cost American lives, and we all paid with a stronger danger and
Iranian distaste for the Western World.
The hostages were released under the first hours of Reagan's shift. Fear or
diplomacy, the work of Democrats or Republicans, bi-partisanship, whatever,
the hostages weren't returned during Carter's shift.
Clinton is held responsible for Iran sanctions that UNICEF said caused many
children to go hungry. He later traded nuclear technology for dialogue with
the Iranian authorities. This is partly why we have a nuclear
problem with Iran today!
Let's see Democratic diplomacy work: Weapons traded = Dialogue. Dialogue =
Weapons traded. Sanctions=Starving. Starving=Animosity.
d) Germany/Russia- THE BERLIN WALL goes up during Kennedy's watch. The Cold
War ends and the wall is torn down during Reagan's watch.
Democrats laid ICBM Missiles across the U.S./Canada border. Diplomacy (or
lack of)intensified the need with Kennedy and Khrushchev at each other's
throat.
The Cold War, a war of heated words and actions, saw North America and the
world built bomb shelters and increase the military and weaponry.
Air raid sirens blared, the public was stressed, and opponents filled the
streets and campuses with ban the bomb movements. Sometimes, it got out of
hand with violence and destruction. The National Guard's new weekly job was
crowd control.
The world's opinion about the land of opportunity and freedom was changing.
The great American dream had turned into the ugly American nightmare.
Thankfully, 2007, however, saw a reduction of over 50% in U.S. warheads
compared to those of 2001. This is not perfect, but it is superior in
contrast to the Democrat's proliferation of weapons.
The treaty- negotiated/completed and signed with Republican diplomacy.
Reagan proposed it, George Bush Sr. signed it. Democrats, once again, missed
opportunity to show leadership that would make the world a safer place for
all.
e)the Iraq war ousted a ruthless dictator. Saddam Hussein was, reportedly,
supported and, in some ways, installed as Iraq's leader by Kennedy, the CIA,
and others.
By 1990 the Iraqi army had become the fourth largest army in the world and
was growing. With Saddam and Khomeini having been supported by the
Democrats, it is, perhaps, the Democrats to blame for the set up of today's
Middle East conflict.
If oil was an issue, as the Democrats stated, why didn't Democrats do
something about it when they had a chance? Are they ready to do something
now? I doubt it.
For votes, in times of this 2008 election, the Democrats have downplayed
their long standing prior diffused argument that, for some Americans, the
Iraq war was to capitalize on oil production. Didn't see all that black gold
coming over here. Where is it? China!? Russia!? Prices at the pumps didn't
prove their argument!? Perhaps, Bill Maher, Oliver Stone, and Michael Moore
have gas stations. Drill Baby Drill.
Clinton's No Fly zone and sanctions failed to solve the problem of Iraq's
aggression. Today 13 of 16 states have the security responsibilities
returned to Iraq's government. This progress under the Republican government
is trivialized and this progress is a tribute to the troops and the public
who support them and embrace their effort.
To see this gain reduced with a change of government would be wasteful,
tragic, and, perhaps, dangerous. It could even be economically and
physically costly.
Troop removal from Iraq has begun as needed, not as desired. Even a child
could tell you that to leave your marbles on the yard amongst strangers
would give you false hopes of returning to see them in place without
protection. Unless you're very lucky, to leave the scene altogether
encourages new players to start a new game.
f) China - George W. Bush was mentioned at China's recent Olympics as being
the leader that China's leaders most trust and wished to maintain dialogue
with because he is known in China as a straight shooter that will do what he
says. Clinton and the Democrats were not mentioned. (As noted later, Bush's
dialogue with China and Russia helped in the recent North Korean diplomacy
leading to unprecedented access since the Korean war).
Straight shooting. That's quite different from Clinton's "I did not have,
etc." McCain's association with Bush? We should be talking about Obama's
association with a past President who got caught in more than one lie.
Considering that only two Presidents were ever impeached (both being
Democrats)(Nixon may have been impeached if he had not resigned), that's not
too good. Even if Clinton did get off like O.J.
Clinton, to no discredit proven of his own doing, has a history of Chinese
corruption infiltrating his campaign funding and his office in the
Whitehouse. Democrats appear to have a problem with this lack of security or
lack of control, along with certain and uncertain accusations of election
fraud from Kennedy to Obama's campaigns.
g) Rwanda and Somalia. No Clinton success here. Similar throughout most of
Africa.
h) Haiti. Clinton loses big with his foreign policy here and gives Haiti
economic poverty and a tragic chaotic whirlwind.
i) North Korea. Nuclear treaties with Clinton ended with a celebrated test
firing of a nuclear missile. Thankfully, with a whisper, unilateral
negotiations with the Bush administration, Russia, China, and North Korea
put the world at ease for the time. North Korea is still a volatile concern.
j) Mexico. 1995 Clinton helped Mexico to a 20 billion dollar loan
(Republicans objected). Immigration problems and drug trafficking persisted,
however.
k) 9/11
Democrats like to shout or sing diplomacy, but history tells us that not
much success is shown. Poor preparation, diplomacy, and lack of vigilance
with the events leading up to Pearl Harbor (Truman's shift), Korea (Truman's
shift), and The Pentagon/Flight 93/World Trade Center have been the letter
of the day with the Democrats.
1993 (Clinton) saw the Ryder truck World Trade Center bombing. WTC terrorist
plans and training continued under Clinton. In the year 2000 (Clinton) these
skyjack terrorists were in the U.S. and, although these matters would be
prove to be difficult to discover and prevent, the prior 8 years of Clinton
foreign policies can be considered a big factor.
THE DRAFT (Conscription)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)began the draft, Harry Truman and Kennedy
used it, Republicans Nixon and Goldwater stopped it (with Ted Kennedy's
objections to keep it active).
Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, congressman from New York, has been a
staunch supporter for mandatory service and the draft.
Hillary Clinton, while the verdict is not solid on her take on the draft,
she did say she would do whatever is necessary (a safe political answer) and
that women over 18 should be registered for service.
Considering his relationship with Kennedy, Rangel, and the Clintons, what do
Obama's present and announced future plans for service to the country
include and exclude? There has been a pattern with the Democrats, so far.
Say what the people want to hear. Stay safe until you can effectively
endorse your plan. That is Obama's approach. The power of suggestion. What
exactly is his suggestion?
Bush did not use conscription. The Iraq war might have been over by now or
it might have been catastrophic as it usually is with less skill and
experience needed to complete the task. The Democrats know this all too well
as history shows.
My suggestion is to keep a strong volunteer military that will be
professional. One that will support those who wish to legally decline
service gracefully and accept service with honor. I'm not sure that's the
Democratic way (unless it's changed). Are you sure?
Vote Democrat and you may see unwanted service for you or yours from a
foxhole. This is historical fact!
As someone who has volunteered to serve his country when Democrats were in
power, to those who have lost a loved one or a friend in service, my deepest
sympathy . . . To those who have lost a loved one or a friend who was
conscripted against their wishes, my very deepest sympathy.
I only hope that conscription (the draft) is not Obama's answer to putting
America back to work or as an economic solution.
Perhaps, you now understand why you and politicians should support volunteer
soldiers, sailors, and airmen/women who have a job to do, and why you need
to seriously consider a vote against possible and very likely conscription.
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
It was Civil Rights leader Susan B. Anthony (a white anti-slavery and labor
activist) who proposed a bill with a Republican, Sen. A.A. Sargent, from
California, to give women's rights of equality such as equal pay for equal
work passing in 1919. Women not only received the vote, but black women were
then included in areas that had not been considered where black men already
received equal benefits. Democrats, both federally and state wide, had
prevented the passing of this legislation for years.
It would be wrong to think that the Republican Party is racist or sexist any
more than the Democratic Party is the sole defender of race and gender.
MEDICAL CARE
During Bill Clinton's administration, and after, Senator Hillary Clinton
spent oodles of taxpayers' dollars on her pet project of Health Care reform
with no end result. That's enough to make anyone sick. (I said oodles
because, unlike Obama and Biden, I refuse to throw out numbers at random
without the chance for you to check on them). Another failed, as of now
incomplete, project by the Democrats.
ECONOMY
Briefly, the U.S. economy did not crash immediately after 9/11. It could
have tumbled with panic and disruption. Bush handled it quickly.
The market that affects U.S. importers and exporters alike. It is not simply
an American problem, nor is it only related to Bush. It is a world problem.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. Seems the Democrats didn't do much there before, what
makes one think they can do it now. The way that Biden and Obama talk, you'd
think that Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Sony and the others were only here for the
past 8 years of Bush. I'm sure that Liberal Hollywood would be happy to hear
about Sony being a new kid on the block. American companies let the workers
down and that was happening during Clinton's shift as well as Bush's.
Enron was a player with many, including the Clinton administration. Banks
have paid only millions in fines to help Enron make billions in profits. Now
banks are being bailed out by a Democratic House. This all prevents
hardships for the public. But at what cost?
Reaganomics had proven to be solid from California to Washington. Every time
the Liberals announce that Conservatives will cause the stock market to
decline, it often does the opposite; unless it is a world market situation
that is less controllable and this will affect everyone no matter what.
A market plunge on a global scale affects Conservative or Liberal
governments, or any other, whether it is in the U.S. or elsewhere. The U.S.
government can help, but it can not control certain financial gains and
losses. You can only work with what resources are available.
The Republicans have re-booted the economy more than once, in recent
history, and, as bad as it is, it still exists. That is the bottom line
folks.
The Iraq war is expensive, but how much debt with interest does the Vietnam
War still add to the National debt?
Aside from Kennedys, Spielberg, and Oprah, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates have
reputedly looked to Obama (although, Bill has been known to play both sides
of the fence, but not equally). Those folks sure aren't rich Republicans.
Some wealthy Democrats are union leaders and not union workers. Are these
rich Democrats like you? Are they going to lose their livelihood in the
long haul? Are they wanting to share their wealth or just yours?
MEDIA
As for the many faux pas that Republicans inherit from the Democrats, the
movie industry and media are quick to shift and hide blame by producing
documentaries that are full of innuendos, shabby research, and beneficial
exaggerations. Democrats learned propaganda methods well during their reign
with the second world war. Hollywood was on board. Revenue was rewarding.
Obama has money and Hollywood wants some now or later.
Unfortunately, Hollywood and the media does poorly with history. It potrays
fiction with Pizzazz. Minorities were, and sometimes still are, excluded
from representing their ethnicity and/or race. Perhaps, a little makeup, a
little costume change, some voice coaching or lip-sync, and we can make a
minority out of a majority. Oh, heck, "Give the kid a chance, just don't do
it too much!".
The media may represent the Democrats, the Democrats say that they represent
the minority; but, the media does a lousy job representing the minority.
They prefer to promote their own agenda, and still the Democrats support the
media. "Hey the media's on and they don't represent me, but if the
celebrities say it's good for me, and the candidate is over exposed with
groupies, who am I to disagree?". Something seems odd about that. Sometimes
the voter is sadly like a Tweenie emulating their idol to the extreme.
Check out the political competition of both sides rather than associating
yourself with a rock star or movie starlet that is swooped up by political
fame, flimsy promises, and a good time from Club Utopia. Many, but not all,
political junkie entertainers do not have the knowledge or experience to
make a calculated decision on your behalf. Directors and campaign managers
make calculated decisions.
While you're at it . . . don't choose a candidate based on Granny's
affiliation with a party, it may not work for you in your times. You won't
be getting any invite to the Inaugural Ball, but you may be paying for it.
Have you noticed Obama is televised soon after a speech or interview from
McCain? It is orchestrated. This would seem to give Obama another unfair
advantage. And it does. Airtime and coverage, such as candidates being
covered and then cut off for another who can answer back, will always be
optimized for the candidate whom the media supports. So what if Citizen Kane
tells you what to think?
Close up video with few people in the crowd is always less effective than a
wide shot crowd scene. Added pre-recorded crowd noise and individual cheers
or insults can alter the true event.
Mass marketing by a company that has a monopoly of TV, Radio, Film, and
print can make one believe that if the article is the same in one place as
it is in another it must be true.
Pollsters falsify or manipulate polls by constructive choice of location,
lifestyle, race, gender, and other factors that may or may not resemble you
or another poll. I could go on, but I'll spare you.
As a former Director I will tell you this: Performers are made, not born.
Some have presence and some do not. Rehearsal pays off. In the end it is
still a performance- because 'All the world's a stage'. Words are
plagiarized and written. Some read better written copy better than others.
Staging does not mean the candidate can think or perform better in a crisis.
The pen is mightier than the sword (I sure hope this pen works).
Obama's pen is very very good; however, his sword might not cut it. 'To be
or not to be' . . . That is the question.
RACE and Religion
No one party has the royal flush on this issue.
There's Colin Powell and Barack, Condoleezza, John and Joe to be sure.
Obama's got his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The Moral Majority Jerry Falwell
is in touch with Republicans. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, the
list goes on. All vote for their choice. No point in adding to that list. It
is enough to say race and religion runs the gamut with all minorities
(including some famous and not so famous Latinos). This addresses the
questions with "Yes!", minorities can be represented by either Party.
Minorities are encouraged to build America with the Republican Party.
Contrary to popular belief, the Democratic party fabricates stereotyping for
getting their minority vote.
Republican support for minorities, although not the same, is equally
historical. Check it out.
What about Dr. Martin Luther King? Whether he can be classified as a
Republican is sometimes argued. He certainly did his famous marches and
speeches fighting for equality and wages mostly during Democratic rule. Dr.
King's holiday was put into legislation by Republican George W. Bush Sr.
Whackos and moderates from both sides surrounded the religious in Dr. King's
time. Things haven't changed. Some go to the moon while others shake rattle
snakes. Some get their opinion and politics at the Barbershop or
Hairdressers' while others get it from a self serving media outlet.
Religion. Some have it, some don't. Some are confused and some are unmoved.
Some are fanatical loonies for or against everything. Others learn politics
from Bubba and some get religion from a whack on the head.
Certainly, color has issues too. Obama could be the first black/white
President, but does that make him the best one? Is color the reason to deny
him the Presidency or is color the reason to give him the most important job
in the world?
People of all types stood as one before and they will again, and again, and
again.
Would voting for Obama be a step forward or backward if he were chosen based
on his race or color. Would it be any different with gender, for example?
Are you voting for the person, the issues, or both?
SUMMARY
You can check the history for yourself.
There's no silver bullet. If you order the package will it be delivered?
Will it be delivered as ordered? Has the delivery been handled with
experience or is it a new service?
Has John McCain delivered? Has Sarah Palin delivered? Do they have the
support to deliver? Has the delivery been safely handled? Can they deliver
time after time?
Around the world age and wisdom is thought of as a bonus.
Now is not the time to think about 'Maybe I'll give the other guys a
chance'. There are candidates with active consultants who are already in
touch with the troubles and the leaders of today's world.
Canada has recently voted against forming a Liberal government in this world
of economic downturn. As all Liberals do, Canada's Liberals overtaxed and
over promised. Our Conservatives reduced tax and kept promises. They were
returned to power. We are more alike than unalike the U.S. We share the same
issues and dreams.
Vote McCain and Palin based on ability to complete their promises. I know
they'll act rather than talk. Vote for people you can relate to.
Don't get hoodwinked by pie-in-the-sky promises, false hopes, and
unattainable offers. Don't vote because of the best campaign.
The world needs a proven leader. Being a speaker is not enough if no one is
listening. Let Obama rule his world - not mine or yours.
PS Afghanistan is a wild card. No foreigner, I repeat no foreigner has ever
controlled Afghanistan. Technology and or Democrats will not.
Quiz: Libya's Muammar Qaddafi? Guess who quieted this terrorist. Republican
Ronald Reagan. |
|
