What Is This World Coming To?

Investors Business Daily
It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain “anywhere, anytime.” But in June, Obama said no to McCain’s challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.’s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama’s Achilles’ heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.

“It’s one of those situations where the devil is in the details,” Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, “in parents who have viciously abused their children.” According to the Democrat, we can’t really erase evil in the world because “that is God’s task.” And we have to “have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil.”

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must “defeat” evil. If al-Qaida’s placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn’t evil, he asked: “You have to tell me what is.”

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq’s scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who “had his skull fractured” by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said “drilling” — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: “What I’m trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code.” McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.”

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama’s shallowness juxtaposed with McCain’s depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

by L. Brent Bozell

John McCain has figured out that one way to build enthusiasm among conservatives is to confront his former best friends in the liberal media. As the media glorify Barack Obama the “statesman” on his trip abroad, with the three network anchors lining up for interviews like a gaggle of smitten fan-club presidents, the McCain campaign suddenly acquired a surprising “Annoy The Media” flavor. Read the rest of this entry »

by Marie Jon’

While some might be undecided on who to vote for this coming Election Day, for others it’s a no-brainer. Although the news media would like us to believe otherwise, there is still an enormous political gap between the Left and the Right.

“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins” — William Pitt

The American people must wake up to the the facts. The Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism, and Barack Obama is — by his record — as far left as one can get in the party.

Sorry America, but we can’t afford an Obama presidency. It would be political and social mayhem having a Democrat House, Senate, Supreme Court and Executive branch. For many decades the United States would be held under the sway of a very unjust, destructive force. Our citizenry would have to deal with the extreme rulings of a Supreme Court gone wild. There would be no more checks and balances.

Liberal judges would change our country’s disposition. Even if Americans were roused from their lethargy and subsequently voted in a Republican president and Congress, it would be too late. They would not be able to neutralize the highest court of the land.

Once a liberal Supreme Court is installed, all traditional values will be null and void. Everything will change to satisfy the progressives’ mind-set. Nothing would be sacrosanct, from the war against terror to the right to bear arms, late-term abortion and the varied definitions of marriage.

America needs a Republican president who will appoint judges to the Supreme Court without a litmus test. Only then can liberalism’s hold of our federal benches be defeated. Our country might then be spared from the dictates of a black-robed oligarchy.

Senator John McCain is not trying to run as a Ronald Reagan conservative. He is a maverick. Yet, even his worst critics understand that our nation would be much better off in the hands of President John McCain than President Barack Obama. Read the rest of this entry »

Worldnetdaily’s David Kupelian published a column in which he outlined the three best reasons to elect John McCain over Barack Obama. Considering that his boss, Joseph Farah, has gone on record saying he intends to cast a protest vote for a third party candidate, Kupelian’s arguments put him on the opposite side.

Reason One: End the tyranny of the Supreme Court

Reason Two: Win the war against radical Islam

Reason Three: A president needs a strong character

A protest vote for a third candidate is therefore a partisan decision in which what is best for the country is secondary to what is best for the party. Do you want someone in the White House who opposes abortion, or someone who favors it? Voting for someone who has no chance of winning accomplishes zero for the country — even if it makes you feel good.

It provides yet another definition of 21st century patriotism: “The country may collapse, but I feel good about it. Serves them right for not agreeing with me.” I like the old definition better: “My country, right or wrong.”

Call me a blind loyalist, if you like. I no longer know what ‘patriot’ means, anyway.