I couldn't agree with the preceding quotation more.
In a previous post, I asked Jim, a particularly tenacious Liberal who, for some unknown reason, frequents and comments on my blog site, to give me just three of Barack Obama’s accomplishments in the State or United States legislatures that qualify him to be President. I made the mistake of failing to ask him to be specific, but nonetheless, after a couple of days, he came up with a reasonably intelligent (though somewhat non-specific) answer. This is it:
"Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.
In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
Good effort, Jim. I'll give you that. But, I asked what has he done that qualifies him to be President. You're falling a little short of what I asked. No matter. Here’s my response:
So, he gained bi-partisan support, eh? OK. Who did he gain bi-partisan support from, and for what, specifically? This is a very important question. You see, there are Republicans who are just as Liberal and therefore, wrong, as the Democrats. Whatever bi-partisan legislator it is that supports Obama's proposals may lend credibility to whether Obama is Presidential timber, or it may not, depending on the proposal and/or the legislator.
Get it? Just because some State legislators, who may be Conservative or Liberal Republicans, went along with Obama on some bills, it doesn’t necessarily mean he got them to change their minds and see things his way. They could be just some of those bills that everyone agrees with anyway. That wouldn't qualify Obama to be President.
"[R]eforming ethics and health care laws"? In what way did he propose to reform ethics and health care laws? If he proposed to throw more taxpayer money at the problems, he creates more of a problem than he started with.
That doesn't qualify him to be President. In fact, it more likely disqualifies him.
And speaking of qualifications to be President, I don’t think you really want to go into ethics. For one thing, “Ethics” is a relative term. What Obama believes to be ethical is certainly not what I believe to be ethical. He believes live babies who survive abortions should be discarded in a waste container to be neglected to death.
That’s not ethical by my standards. Is that your ethics?
Next, “He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare“?
If such a bill passed, (which in itself, is another important point to determine qualification) it leads to another important question:
Where do you suppose the money to do these things comes from?
IT COMES FROM YOU!
Doesn't it disturb you in the least that Obama proposes reaching into your pocket and taking your hard earned money out without your permission and handing it over to welfare bums and cheats who refuse to work for their money ? Wouldn’t you prefer to decide for yourself how much money you give out of your own pocket to assist people in need? Wouldn’t you like to know who your money is helping, instead of taking some bureaucrats word?
You know, if the government wasn’t taking a large percentage of each paycheck to pay for government welfare programs and to subsidize abortions and tasteless so-called art, etc, you would have more money to distribute the way you feel is appropriate. We already pay way too much. Why do you want to elect a President that will increase the amount?
What if, by taking your money in the form of taxes, forces you to suck on the Government teat yourself? Would you be grateful to Obama’s Government for the opportunity to experience first hand the Governments generosity or would you get angry that Government generosity put you into that position in the first place? A little of both, perhaps?
Now, if you actually want the Government to take half the money you earned and give it to people and programs with which you might not necessarily want to share, you are more than welcome. Will you please give them a little extra to cover my share? Because I don't want them taking the money I work hard for! I think I can decide how best to use my own money, and even if I can't, they still have no right to my money!
A President who steals from the people over whom he is supposed to be presiding isn't a President that has the American people’s best interest at heart.
Therefore, he isn't qualified to be President.
Finally, "In the US Senate Obama has sponsored (besides over 600 co-sponsored) 136 bills."
What was in those bills, Jim? Were these bills that created more Government intrusion and spending for things the Government has no business butting into? That wouldn’t be the kind of man I want as my President.
My guess is that they were bills that introduced things such as naming post offices after obscure almost-famous people. That is, bills that don't require much in the way of actual hard decision making. After all, Obama voted "present" on over 130 pieces of impending legislation. That's a legal way of saying, "I can't decide how I want to vote on this issue".
He couldn't even decide whether to vote yes or no!
Doesn’t that bother you at all, Jim?
If he can't decide how to vote on inconsequential issues, how can we expect him to make crucial world changing decisions at a moments notice as President of the United States?
As Rudy Guiliani (a Liberal Republican) says, "There's no voting present when you're the President." You have to be able to make final decisions when you're President. Sometimes unpopular decisions. Those are the kinds of decisions Obama has chastised President Bush for making.
It’s easy to make popular decisions. Anyone can make them. But it takes a President to make difficult decisions that directly effect the security of the United States of America and our allies.
I don’t think Obama has what it takes to make those decisions. Even Joe Biden, Obama’s pick for Vice President, says, “The Presidency is not the kind of job which lends itself to ‘on the job training.” Of course, that may not carry much weight with Obamaniacs. After all, he is "the dumbest man in the Senate", according to Mark Levin.
There are still too many unanswered questions about Obama’s record in the state and US legislatures to qualify him for President.
Obama has advisers and campaign managers now. And, if elected President, he will still have advisers. But, running an entire government is more difficult than running a campaign.
He can trust his advisers to make a decision for him when it comes to running a successful campaign, and as President, he may trust his advisers to give him solid advice when a real crisis comes up, but in the end, as President, the final decision rests upon his shoulders alone. His advisers and staff can’t make those decisions, nor should they.
He isn’t allowed to pass the buck when and if he is President.
One cannot run a country based on opinion polls.
Obama hasn’t shown an ability to make difficult decisions in the past. I’d say the 130+ times he chose to vote “present” instead of yes or no, along with the many changes in his positions, bears that observation out. And, based on his position points, or should I say, lack of positions, I’d place hundreds of times more trust in John McCain to make the right decisions than I would Obama.
Not to mention the fact that Obama embraces Marxist policies and ideologies. He says he will bring "change", but what kind of "change"?
I’ll tell you what kind:
He wants to change America from a Democratically representative Republic to a Marxist controlled dictatorship.
And that is a risk America can't afford to take.