THE RACE FOR 2008

The requirement for being president has changed from that of the Constitution’s prerequisites: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution also states one must be a “natural born citizen;” one must be “thirty-five years of age” and one must have lived in the U.S. at least “fourteen years” upon declaring a run for the presidency. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state one must have or not served in the military if one is to ever be President of the United States.

Apparently if one has served this nation, was been shot down in the line of duty, injured severely and served five long years as a prisoner of war, one is not fit to serve as President of the United States. On the other hand if one sat on a splinter, stapled his pinky finger while fumbling with military documents, and received Purple Hearts for the severe splinter engraving and stapling slash, that man is a noble war hero created for Oval Office Executor.

It also helps that the man awarded medals for butt-splinters and suspiciously stapled fingers filmed him self gallantly swaggering through the jungles with machine gun in hand ala’ Chuck Norris in “MISSING IN ACTION.” It’s even better he became an anti-war medal hurler; it made him a must choice for president.

Now we have a general-turned-constitutional expert explaining what it takes to become America’s Commander and Chief.

Obama supporter General Wesley Clark made some odd statements on June 30, 2008 to CBS’s Bob Schieffer who asked Clark if McCain’s Vietnam service is relevant to making him a good president. The answer was a no; John McCain is not qualified to serve as president because he was a fighter pilot, a P.O.W. who chose to stay behind, despite his acquired release by his Admiral father, and underwent horrendous torture with his prison mates for five years.

Though General Clark stated McCain’s service makes him “a genuine American hero,” Clark does not feel McCain’s service is pertinent to making him Commander and Chief: “I don’t think getting a fighter plane shot down is a qualification to become president” Clark said.

The statement comes from the man who ran for president in 2004 with a suspicious war record for abuses in the field.

Clark further declared: “He [McCain] has been a voice on the Senate armed Services Committee. And he has travelled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn’t a war-time squadron.”

So now a war-time squadron makes one applicable for the Executive. Well there goes the marijuana prize.

On the other hand a four year Senator with no experience other than orating like an over practiced philosophic Greek rhetorician with nothing to say is appropriate to run the country.

Clark’s statement was ridiculous, even to conservatives who have been extremely critical of McCain for not being conservative enough on the issues. Conservatives and Swift Boat Vets were condemned for speaking out on John Kerry’s record in service and after service as an anti-war activist, but it’s satisfactory vernacular for a political climber like Clark, once described by the Pentagon as a “loose-cannon,” and who’s obviously vying for an Obama Administration position, to become the expert in presidential qualifications.

I hear Ambassador to Russia might be a good position since Clark has such a wonderful friendship with the Russians he tried to bomb.

Clark’s comment come form the same liberal faction who continue to assert George W. Bush was AWOL because he served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, an actual branch of the military liberals don’t consider real. This same group considers George W. Bush a war criminal yet praises the Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the war in Yugoslavia a hero despite his aggression in insisting upon air assaults on Russian troops heading toward the Pristina Airport in Kosovo. The order was rejected by British General Michael Jackson who told Clark the move would start World War III.

That never stopped Clark from becoming the “loose-cannon.”

Clark, who blamed Washington for his field orders, was criticized greatly. The Pentagon announced Clark’s retirement three months before the actual schedule.

News Week deemed Clark a hero despite testimony from those in Clarks’ command. When it came to Bush, News Week was, and never has been, as sympathetic.

Clark is a hold-over General from the Clinton Administration seeking some position to place him back in the power he lost when Clinton fired him. His comment calls for questioning: do we care whether a man served in the military? Most Americans did not care that Bill Clinton was actually AWOL and hiding in England with marijuana joint attached to his lips. His disservice was slightly questioned by the left, but when all was said and done, the majority did not care Clinton was a deserter, not to mention womanizer, and elected him twice.

Clinton turned out to be a serial molester accused of rape prior to the presidency, as well as during the presidency. Even those accusations and the proof of sex in the Oval Office with a White House intern did not seem to matter to Americans who voted Clinton to his second term after the scandal erupted.

The American presidency has veered so far off course from its constitutional origins with liberal presidents and their allies who see the government as the parent of the American people. Thus men like General Clark would love to see a liberal, who displays anti-patriotic behavior and believes the government should take full control, take just that from the people by declaring a war hero unfit to serve the people.

The significance of the presidency does not depend upon whether the candidate served in the armed forced, nor does age matter; what matters is can the man uphold the sworn oath to protect and defend?

During the Constitutional Convention debates none of the founders stood up and demanded every president must be a fabulous rhetorician with a stylish wife. The founders were more concerned with not modeling the presidency on the British monarchy and creating an Executive that would have the strength of will to check the Legislature the founders feared would try to overrun the country by gaining power.

In the Virginia Plan, the design called for what American Presidential Political Scientists Sidney M. Milkis and Michael Nelson call “[a] plan generally accorded with what most delegates at the start of the constitutional convention seemed to have been seeking: an agent of restraint in a basically legislative government.”

Clark is exactly the type of man the founders would not want in a cabinet or in the Legislature restraining Americans via Washington.

Clark is actually correct that military service does not prove one fit to serve the Executive. Just look at Jimmy Carter: he served in World War II and turned out to be the worst president in U.S. history next to LBJ who served in the War on Poverty that created millions of lazy welfare P.O.W.’s. Yet the founders did in fact see military service as not only great, but an advantage to understanding foreign and national policy. As a former military General Clark should understand this since it was his foreign policy to blast the Russians and possibly start another war.

The problem with Clark is he was relieved of military service for insubordinate conduct. Clark was fired. Clark is an angry man who lost the Democratic nomination in 2004 to a fake war hero because Clark’s real war record is worse than the liar. Clark is finished politically; he destroyed himself for no reason other than megalomania; his mistakes did not free Yugoslavia, rather helped create Islamic states in the Balkans that would no longer exist had Clark and Clinton never entered that cesspool of Mohammad that was massacring Christians and Jews Clinton, the military deserter, should have defended rather than Serbs and Croats.

Clark’s only chance now for hero worship now is to kiss up to Obama, hope Obama will offer the VP or cabinet position if Obama can con America into believing P.O.W.’s have no right to enter the Oval Office.

Lisa Richards

www.lisa-richards.com

OBAMA BEATS HILLARY:
HILLARY BEATS BILL

BY LISA RICHARDS

JUNE 5, 2008

The most liberal politician in America won the Democrat delegates and presidential nomination. Barry Obama, the so-called first black presidential candidate (he’s half white so technically the he’s the first Mullatto presidential candidate) left Hillary Clinton choking on the campaign bus exhaust when comatose Americans voted overwhelmingly for a man who said nothing for 16 months while appeasing liberals with anything they wanted to hear.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton is comatose on the living room floor next to a pile of broken lamps.

Obama has been relentless in his fight for diplomatic tea parties with Iran and Syria. Non-thinking Americans fell for the “charismatic,” “fresh,” “young,” candidate of “change” who explained what he intends to do if president:

“Change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged…what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years…and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.”

I don’t recall Bush or any other Republican stating troops would stay in Iraq for 100 years. As for other threats, that would be Iran’s Holocaust denier Obama wants to befriend.

Obama further declared: “We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.” Obama is forgetting the reasons for going into Iraq in were legit: Saddam was given 17 UN Resolutions he violated, six months to hide his weapons as the UN insisted Bush wait while inspectors strolled around the Iraqi desert with their heads in the sands, and 48 hours to get out of Iraq, into exile and no bombing would take place.

That is referred to as diplomacy if Obama needs a definition. Saddam gave diplomacy the finger; Bush gave Saddam what he deserved.

Obama told his followers “It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century— terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.”
Has the Senator not heard of the War on Terror? It’s about fighting terrorism, al Qaeda, and stopping the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the enemy. As for climate change, it happens every four months: spring, summer, autumn, and winter.

The great orator further stated: “Change is realizing that meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy—tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.”

I believe Bush did that when he carpet-bombed Afghanistan and the Taliban; I believe Bush did that when he dropped a 20 ton Daisy Cutter on Saddam Hussein’s palace.

Obama’s rationalization was that “We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That’s what the American people want. That’s what change is.”

FDR’s change ushered communism into America via his friendship with “Uncle Joe” Stalin while hiring American communist Alger Hiss; Kennedy is the man who led us into Vietnam, the war all liberals and Democrats blame Republicans for; Kennedy is the president who promised to take down Castro, sent Cubans back to Cuba to wait for U.S. troops and then turned his troops around leaving allied Cubans to get slaughtered on the beach.

Yes, that’s the America we all long for.

Obama is true to keeping up the FDR-style with no-good friends: Washington D.C. bomber William Ayers, his 20 year attendance at a racist church shepherded by a white-hating anti-Semite, his friendship with the radical white priest Father “Flagrant” Pflagler who speaks with a faux Ebonics accent while screaming white castigation.

Despite unexplained friendships with men who hate America, Jews, and anyone white, Obama won the Democrat delegates and nomination without question.

George W. Bush told America his hero is Jesus Christ, he’s pro-life, and Bush was crucified for the display of faith. Liberals across America declared Bush was going to force Evangelical conversion on America while actress Cameron Diaz told Oprah viewers Bush was going to make rape legal in America.

Neither has happened under the Bush Administration; Obama on the other hand can have affiliations with violent thugs and racists and liberals act as if Obama can raise the dead, heal the sick, and walk on water he turns into wine.

Obama’s acceptance speech was appeasement to whiners he has believing middle-class is virtual poverty akin to Calcutta. John McCain, who doesn’t have the guts to smack Obama’s oratorical comments with the truth about the Democrat Poverty Party, is only helping elect Obama by praising Democrats rather than Republicans.

Obama further elucidated: “Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it.” The economy rewards all who work, not just the wealthy, otherwise known as the people who create the jobs and sign the paychecks. Obama will not say that. What he does say is the majority of America is struggling while Republicans spend “billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs…”

Obama is a cultural liberal elitist who knows how to talk a good talk and make his followers swoon despite his radical proposals for the country: Universal Healthcare, i.e. socialized medicine, reparations to blacks because a handful of Americans once owned black slaves over a 140 years ago (never mind the fact it was black Africans who sold their people to whites, it’s white America’s fault), free tuition to blacks and Hispanics (it’s not free since tax-payers must pay the way for those who refuse to pay), tax hikes on the wealthy since it’s unconstitutional to become wealthy and horribly wrong to have the means to hire those who need jobs, appeasement talks with Iran who continues threatening to annihilate Israel off the map, appeasement talks with Syria and those lovable little sling-shot champions, the Palestinians, Obama is worried won’t have a homeland if he’s not president.

Bill Clinton was so worried about Palestinians not having a home he tried to give 99% of Israel to Arafat. Obama makes both Clinton’s look like conservatives in comparison.

Obama has affiliations with the Anti-Semite, white-hating Louis Farrakhan and that has not bothered his constituents. Senator Trent Lott gave a happy birthday tribute to 100 year-old ex-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, who apologized years ago for his past, and Republicans forced Trent Lott to resign in disgrace.

Still Obama refuses to explain his friendships: when put on the spot Obama simply denounces whoever he’s been associated with without giving a why.

At least with Hillary Clinton Americans know exactly what they are getting: a lying, thieving, adultery enabling, bad-tempered radical feminist married to a serial molester accused of rape who wants the U.S. Europeanized.

Barry Obama calls rural Americans bitter because they own guns, read Bibles, and believe in God and he secures the Democrat nomination. Michelle Obama calls America a “down right mean country” of “great white oppressors” she has not been proud of until this year and her husband acquires the Democrat nomination hands down; Barry Obama declared in one of last summer’s Democrat debates he “does not support the troops,” yet he won the nomination; Obama has been photographed with his hands at his side refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag and liberals crown him king; Obama has snidely refused to wear a flag lapel pin and gullible Americans bow at Obama’s feet.

I’m waiting for the donkey and palms.

Not long ago the Senator claiming he was against going to Iraq (despite the fact he was not elected until a year after the U.S. went to Iraq) wanted to invade Pakistan while pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. If a Democrat sends troops to war it’s right, just, and unquestionable; if a Republican goes to war to take out a violent dictator it’s the crime of the century.

Bush should have bombed an aspirin factory. At least he would have a good excuse for using superior fire power.

Obama claims he “will always stand up for Israel’s right” to exist in the world while defending the enemy’s rights. Bush should have denied the Holocaust; he would have received a third term.

If Obama wins in November America can look forward to many presidential visits to Camp David from Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad. William Ayers will provide security of course.