It is altogether appropriate that last April, when Barack Obama delivered his disparaging commentary in San Francisco about Americans who, in his opinion, "get bitter" and "cling to guns and religion" as a result of hardship, he specifically mentioned the good people of Pennsylvania. It was after all, a past generation of "bitter clingers" in Philadelphia two centuries ago who, looking around them and concluding that "change" was clearly in order, crafted the Declaration of Independence, committing everything they owned to the cause, and asserting a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
Their audacious effort was backed up by General George Washington, that most resolute of "bitter clingers," whose own reliance on God, guns, and the valor of his fellow patriots in rags finally birthed this nation, shedding their blood on such hallowed lands as Yorktown and Valley Forge. Those great Americans and their modern counterparts have clearly been steeped in a philosophical and spiritual doctrine that is starkly different from anything Barack Obama can comprehend. So it is no wonder that he would malign them.
Over the last few weeks, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has demonstrated, on several fronts, that her own background and abilities thoroughly qualify her to be second in command at the White House. More importantly however, with each passing day, she proves that her political worldview is far more reflective of the founders and the people of the heartland than anything offered by Obama or his minions on the left.
If her track record as Governor of Alaska, her convention speech, and her ability to remain unruffled by the disgraceful conduct of the liberal media towards her was not sufficient to make this case, Palin's performance last week at the vice-presidential debate certainly was. It is important to remember that, at once, she had to contend with an overtly unsympathetic debate "moderator" while displaying the skills and proficiency necessary to assume the nation's helm at a moment's notice.
Of even greater significance was that she had to prove these abilities while successfully navigating the gauntlet of her running mate's often-varied stances on the issues. Anything less would have opened floodgates of media skepticism about the compatibility of the two candidates. Nevertheless, she rose to the occasion and surpassed all expectations. Clearly, she is a person who is not intimidated by the erudite banalities of the "Ivy League." And such a quality is needed inside the Beltway now, more than ever before.
Real America is grimly aware that something major is very wrong in Washington. But Sarah Palin has already found herself in similar situations as Governor of Alaska, and has consistently risen above them. In contrast, a serious examination of Barack Obama's record (an admitted rarity among the sycophants of the liberal media) reveals his plans for "change" to be little more than alterations in packaging and rhetoric, but not policy. And with fundamental policies remaining unchanged, it is ludicrous to expect any change in results.
The aftershocks of the misnamed "bailout" reveal nothing less. Though angry and vehement in their opposition as the contrived drama unfolded, Americans are just now beginning to grasp the enormity of this boondoggle. With barely a few days to consider the full ramifications of their actions, the Congress and President have committed the nation to spending nearly one trillion dollars.
Meanwhile, they steadfastly refused to assign culpability to the likes of Representative Barney Frank (D.-MA), Senator Chris Dodd (D.-CN), or any of the principals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who precipitated the disaster while funneling money into their own bank accounts and Democrat coffers.
This is "business as usual" within the politically incestuous circles of the Nation's Capitol, but on a far grander scale than ever before. And since absolutely nobody has been held accountable for the incomprehensively expensive non-solution, barring a major house cleaning the nation can only reasonably expect more of the same. Under an Obama administration the only likely "change" may be that Americans eventually lose their ability to object to the similar outrages that are certain to come.
In light of this, it is worthwhile to consider whose past record portends any possibility of a truly effective "change" in the appalling condition of the federal government.
Few Americans are either so uninformed or willfully blind as to pretend that the Chicago/Illinois political machine is actually open and virtuous in its conduct. Yet Barack Obama not only survived within that system, he thrived there. It is virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that, by refusing to confront the system, he was eventually absorbed into it. In contrast, Sarah Palin saw problems within the Alaskan government and proceeded to fix them.
In Sarah Palin's world, "bipartisanship" means that she pursues corrupt Republicans as fervently as she pursues corrupt Democrats, a severe departure from the D.C. mindset. In a similarly atypical fashion, her most noted "flip flop" was to eventually refuse funding of the "bridge to nowhere" after having initially voicing approval of it. Refusing "pork" is a cardinal sin according to the prevailing thinking in Washington. So of course it is this situation, and not Obama's schizophrenic and conflicting foreign policy pronouncements regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his acceptance of exorbitant "donations" from Fannie Mae, that gravely concerns the liberal media.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but is very close to its most noted American advocates such as "Nation of Islam" founder Louis Farrakan. He is not a terrorist, but each passing day reveals deeper ties between himself and the likes of Bill Ayers. He is not a mass embezzler, but retains former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines on his campaign staff. And he is not a traitor, but is wholly sympathetic to the likes of Ahmadinejad, while being unrestrained in his criticism of America.
John McCain, and not Sarah Palin, is at the top of the Republican Presidential ticket. Nevertheless, as vice-president she would bring an element of honesty and proven integrity to the nation's highest office, which it sorely needs. Clearly, Barack Obama represents a pillar of the liberal/elitist establishment in Washington. The notion of "change" under his leadership amounts to wishful thinking, with absolutely no supporting evidence, and plenty of reason to expect the opposite.
Copyright ©2008 Christopher G. Adamo