We should not elect a bogus preacher for president

Robert Mitchum was a fine if underrated actor famous for playing bogus preacher roles. Among the many films in which Mitchum portrays such a character is The Night of the Hunter. Robert Mitchum plays an evil, diabolical, self-appointed preacher. Mitchum’s preacher is a really bad guy. He is a serial killer and con man.

Bogus preachers can be self appointed, as was Robert Mitchum, or they can be anointed by the public as a messianic politician. Barack Obama slides easily into that role. Though not self-appointed, Obama does not reject or deny the position but takes full advantage of it as a newly minted clergyman holding his parishioners in awe with his words and style if not the substance of his message. In this role, Obama can be said to emulate his mentor, the not so reverend Gerald Wright.

Whereas Mitchum’s sinister preacher was a criminal doing harm to some people, Obama can do much more damage. By deluding his flock with mesmerizing speeches, his audience fails to fully absorb his socialist ideas for running the country and the very far reaching implications.

If Barack Obama succeeds in his quest for the holy grail of American politics, we will have the most liberal senator in government sitting in the oval office and he will be the most liberal politician ever to be elected to the presidency. He is even more liberal than Ted Hennedy, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the past, Americans have rejected socialistic Democrats such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter (for a second term), Michael Dukakis and Vietnam veteran John Kerry. Yet Obama who is more left than any of the previously rejected liberals who ran for president, he has a good chance to succeed where the others failed, and the reason is many people simply refuse to understand where Obama would lead the country from the most powerful elected position in the world.

As one writer said: "Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost; George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost; Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. "

Voters should look behind Obama’s rhetoric from in front of a teleprompter and consider what he really stands for.

Obama’s positions include: opposing the death penalty under any circumstances; people should not be able to own handguns; opposition to free trade agreements; a belief that "negotiation" and discussions with murdering Islamic Nazis can get them to disavow annihilation of Israel and the killing of innocents in the United states and elsewhere; opposition to deregulation of government; raising taxes on workers who already provide more than 50% of government revenue to support greater redistribution of wealth; a universal health insurance scheme that will increase healthcare costs of employed Americans while reducing the quality and availability of healthcare services; a faith in government to solve all the world’s and the country’s problems in the incredible belief that a government run system is less expensive and more efficient than a private system; denial of efforts to increase domestic oil production such as opening ANWAR to exploration and oil drilling; a religious fervor belief that man is causing "global warming" and the solution is to reduce the quality of American life; a "comprehensive" approach to the illegal immigration problem that includes legalizing illegal immigrants, providing them amnesty and citizenship (unfortunately in these he shares the posture of all his rivals for presidential office); American tax payers should solve world poverty (Obama introduced a bill that would have tax payers spend $645 billion to eradicate poverty worldwide); and associations with anti-Americans such as Reverend Gerald Wright and American terrorist Bill Ayres, a leading member of the Weather Underground and an admitted and unrepentant bomber of American institutions whose philosophy as he stated is: ’’Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at’’.

If elected president Obama would be our Commander-in Chief but what would he do about national security? Last summer Obama talked about invading nuclear-armed Pakistan; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel, and with Kim Jong II, the murderer of his people by starvation. Obama has also stated that the nuclear option is off the table against terrorists. No wonder Hamas has endorsed Obama for president. Obama is a novice at foreign-policy and he would put our national security at risk.

Obama also had the audacity to say at a rally "All praise and glory to God!" while also saying Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked Christianity." He is in favor of partial birth abortion and will appoint Supreme Court justices who are against any diminishing of the unfettered right to abortion. Those he relies upon for spiritual guidance endorse homosexual marriage and anti-Americanism.

In the economic area, Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich" but says nothing about how to fix Social Security or Medicare. His solution to make prescription drugs available to seniors, provide healtcare to all children and for all manner of government takeovers and new programs is to raise taxes.

With Obama in charge and the House and Senate in Democrat hands, there will surely be a socialist agenda. Those who support Obama now should not fall for his eloquence as a speaker or his good looks. Voters should look behind the veneer and rhetoric, and his race, and consider how the United States would be irrevocably altered if Obama becomes president of our country. We must make sure a person is elected who is qualified for the office and who will not strive to change our country and those values which have made us great; our future and civilization depends on it. Obama is not that person.