Why I Can't Vote for Obama

In five days we'll determine who will lead our country for the next 4 years. When we cast our vote, we are part of the process that makes America so great--the opportunity to choose who will govern us. We still have the ability to make choices. We still have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. As I've pondered who I believe will be the best leader for our country, I have to conclude that it is John McCain. He has the most experience in being a commander-in- chief, he's had the most experience working in Washington, and he's had the most life experience. He's patriotic and knows what it means to serve others.

I simply cannot vote for Barack Obama because:

1. He supports abortion. Again and again he's shown by his voting record that he supports and condones ending human life in its early stages. Even when he was presented proof that a hospital in his own state was allowing babies to die after the mother was induced, he refused to take any action to stop the practice.

2. He supports gay marriage. I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I do not support changing the definition for any group, even if they are very vocal and threatening. Family is the most basic fundamental unit of our society. We should encourage marriage, rather than discourage it. We should not tear it down or demean it to appease a tiny minority of people who have chosen an alternative lifestyle. I sincerely hope that voters in CA and AZ will be able to, once and for all, define marriage as between one man and one woman.

3. He advocates socialism. He continues to preach "spreading the wealth." Why? Why do people who've worked hard have to pay a larger percentage of taxes to take care of people who may not work at all? This ideology can be compared to a student that studies, works hard, attends class, and turns in homework having to give half of his A grades to a student who doesn't show up for class, doesn't turn in assignments, fails the tests, and doesn't care about school. The first student would receive half of the second student's F grades so that they could both be equal. Both of them would then be C students. Is this fair? Yet, this is what Obama proposes--those that work share with those that don't. And who decides who gets what? Will Obama live by the same rules he wants to apply to the rest of us? What will happen to the drive and industry that's made this country great? I do not want socialism.

4. He, along with the radical women's organization NOW, wants to register men and women for the draft so that in the event we need one, both men and women will have to fight on the front lines. I am so tired of groups like NOW trying to tell me that I'm not equal with men. Men and women are absolutely equal, but they are not the same. Big difference. I do not want to see women being forced to fight in a war. I don't want to see men forced to fight, either. What makes our current military so strong is the fact that those serving have chosen to do so and have not been forced to enlist. Does anyone remember the Vietnam fiasco with men dodging the draft and those that did honor their country, but did not support or believe in the war? Under Obama's plan, the very people out demonstrating against the war in Iraq will be forced to fight in the next war, and believe me the Iraq war will not be the last.

5. He simply does not have the experience he needs to lead our great country. He has not had enough experience with the military (he would be the commander-in-chief and in charge of the military), he has not even lead a state or balanced a budget.

6. He favors gun control. He opposes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. Will criminals suddenly decide to obey the law and give up their guns? I don't think so. It will be the law-abiding citizens that lose their rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

There are other reasons, but these are my top reasons why I can't vote for Barack Obama.

Guest Blogger: Truth About Banking Crisis

I received this email from a private list I'm on with people in my area. I asked the author if I could post it on my blog because she actually had experience working in the bank industry. She agreed.

Hello everyone-

I do not usually get into e-mail debates, but I feel very strongly about the media's portrayal of the the "evil Bush administration" in regard to this banking crisis and the false reporting of blame.

I worked for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage at the Regional level during this era of "CRA" that is discussed below. The government at that time (Clinton/democrats) put an intense amount of pressure on the banks/mortgage companies to meet CRA numbers and penalized them for not meeting those standards. I remember the incredible amount of resources that WFHM had to put into being "compliant" with government requirements and regulations to put the "poor" into houses- even though they could not afford them. These CRA loans that the government required the banks to make, set up a perfect scenario for greedy bankers to abuse the system and made it difficult for the banks/bankers who had integrity to do an honest days work. WFHM was constantly up against and lost market share to those banks who practiced unethical lending. These banks did not care about the effects these sub-prime loans would have on the future of their companies, their clients or this country- they just rode the sub-prime wave and made lots of money while it lasted. I personally know that banks/mortgage lenders did sub-prime loans with little to no documentation to people who in no way, shape, or form could have afforded the mortgage they were getting. These practices were predatory in nature and endorsed by the government!

Sometimes you just have to say no because it is the right thing to do.
I very much admired one of the top management people of WFHM at that time because he was able to keep WFHM balanced and put in place many rules above and beyond what the government required to keep the books balanced and in check. He knew how to say no, even though it wasn't popular, and he made sure that the people that worked for him knew how to say no too.

I find it appalling that, according to the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?ref=business, many banks that remained in the black and did not require a "bailout", because they were financially responsible with their depositors monies, were made to sign over a portion of their stocks to the government!!!!!!! Goodbye free market economy and welcome to socialism- and if Obama is elected, it will be the last nail in the coffin for democracy and the free market.

How much longer are we as a democratic nation going to allow this country to sink into the abyss of socialism- a lethargic form of government that doesn't work? Educate yourself and hold the correct people responsible for the mess we are in now. Rarely are the effects of new policies felt in the current presidential term, it takes years to see the repercussions of a former administration's decisions and policies. Case in point, we still suffer from the effects of the socialist polices put in place by the FDR administration and very few people today were even born when he was in power!

The Native American Nations are just now coming out of the welfare state that our government forced them into 100 years ago! It took away their individual dignity and pride of who they were as a people. Is this what you want for your children? What legacy are we leaving them?

By continuing to not only allow more governmental control in our lives, but to actually desire it, we are setting our children up for failure. The State of Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina should have taught us this. Self sufficiency, hard work and a desire to strive for something better is what makes this country great- "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime." Dependency on the government only leads to a lack of respect of oneself and each other- know your history- socialism does not work!

Respectfully submitted by a middle class voter.......

Heidi S Morris

McCain Rally in Durango

John McCain made a campaign stop in my area of Colorado on Friday evening. I was surprised to hear he was visiting Durango, especially since the last presidential candidate to visit Durango was John F. Kennedy (before I was even born). It was exciting to hear McCain speak and a great experience for my kids.
I took photos and even a movie of his visit.

He spoke about ending the war and bringing our troops home, strengthening the country by offering tax cuts, including raising the child care tax credit (a great thing at my house since I have 1 million kids--or maybe it just feels that way some days :)) and cutting government spending.

I was disappointed, though, in the Obama supporters that came to protest the rally. Not only did some hold posters with profanity, but they shouted vulgar words at us simply because we chose to attend a rally for the candidate we support. It's always interesting to me that those who demand tolerance seem to be the least tolerant.

I was also disappointed with a young woman who came into the rally with a sign that read, "Just because I have a vagina doesn't mean I have to vote for Palin." (Well, duh). She had that hidden behind a sign of support for McCain and planned to show it to protest. Fortunately, volunteers confiscated her sign. She was with a group of students who bad-mouthed McCain and the Republican party during the rally and complained about how they hated America. I also noticed that many of them didn't cover their hearts or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I say, if they hate America that much, get out. Go somewhere else. It's always amazing to me that the very people who say they hate America are protected in their right to free speech by people who gave their lives to preserve that right. I'd have to say it was very disappointing to see these high school students act so disrespectfully and childish.

All in all, it was a great experience and my family enjoyed it

Interesting Article

This is an interesting article by a well-known LDS author and Democrat. He's also a journalist. I think he makes some valid points that we might want to consider before we cast our votes in a few weeks. I found it here. It first appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC.

See what you think . . .

By Orson Scott Card October 5, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.