Considerations Worth Considering

Here are a few things to ponder at this point in the race, just about two weeks before the day you cast your vote.

First up is an apparent leak of some of Barack Obama's future cabinet positions:

For Secretary of Defense, The One is is looking to the Republican whose own bad judgment most closely duplicated Sen. Obama's own in fervently opposing the Surge and demanding that we surrender in Iraq on a strict timetable: Sen. Chuck Hagel. In January 2007, Sen. Hagel was quoted as saying that the surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

This is the Obama definition of "working with those across the aisle": Selecting the single most dim-witted GOP senator. Bozo Sen. Hagel is almost certainly too stupid to realize that he would enter any Obama Administration with the words "Fall Guy" prominently tattooed across his forehead.

And for the National Leader of the International Mother-May-I Team — excuse me, Secretary of State — Sen. Obama's leaking the name of Sen. John F. "Global Test" Kerry. Sen. Kerry, you'll recall, has splendid foreign policy credentials, having left behind in a Massachusetts closet his uniform as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1970 (and perhaps again in 1971) so that he could travel to Paris and meet secretly and in mufti with our Viet Cong and North Vietnamese enemies. John McCain and his fellows were still POWs when young Kerry returned to urge — yes, you've got it — an immediate American surrender and withdrawal without preconditions from South Vietnam, which by the oddest of coincidences was exactly the same "peace plan" being preached at that very moment by our enemies themselves.

Boy, what an inspiring, successful cast of political mega-powerhouses...

Here's another genius liberal plan from the Obamessiah:

Back during the heated days of the Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama made a crucial decision to appeal to his party’s most liberal base: He embraced the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one.

Hillary Clinton decided to oppose such a concept. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, warned her she could not win the general election taking such a position.

Now, if a Republican group has its way, Obama will suffer defeat at the polls for supporting such a program.

The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (NRTrust PAC) has launched a new TV ad hitting Obama on the issue of licenses for illegals, linking his position to the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11.

Wow, that's a pretty potent ad! Even more importantly, it's true - Barack Obama would give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, granting them access to government benefits and other things that only American citizens should have. And, yes, this is not just an immigration issue, but it's a national security issue. 9/11 already proved it, so do we really have to get attacked again before we learn the lesson? If Obama has his way, it would seem so.

This is a big deal with a lot of Americans, as indicated by this:

A recent Newsmax/Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)

The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.

Another critical issue that is really hurting Obama right now is his socialist plan for the economy (and the subsequent destruction of Joe the Plumber). Michelle Malkin reminds us of another country that tried to 'spread the wealth around': Zimbabwe.

The Raleigh News and Observer profiles a couple from Zimbabwe that was forced to escape their native country when the thug-o-crats decided to “spread the wealth around.”

Sitting at the kitchen table in the couple’s apartment in Ayden, Helen remembers vividly what happened next. Two Mazda pickups, bristling with armed police, were waiting for her. Their leader snatched the gate’s keys from the employee and turned to Helen.

“This is no longer your property. You have 24 hours to get out,” he told her. If you don’t, “we’ll kill you or put you in jail, whichever you prefer.”

It was not an idle threat. In 2000, war veterans killed a neighbor after he refused to leave his farm.

The Herbsts prided themselves on the relationships they formed with their black employees, many of whom worked with the family for years. The couple had provided a pre-school on the property for workers’ children, and a free health clinic where mothers could take their babies. Wally had hoped that his family’s longstanding ties to the area would spare his farm from seizure.

In the end, it did not matter.

The point here is not to suggest that an Obama presidency would create the same sort of situation here as in current-day Zimbabwe; the point is that the whole principle of 'spreading the wealth around' is the first step in absolute control by the bureaucracy. Once they control the wealth, they control the people. When that happens, the entire nation is subjected to the whims of whoever is in charge, and their character and judgment to do what's right (like the old monarchies from medieval Europe). Given Obama's repeated clear violations of what common sense would tell a rational person is good judgment and associations with the most radical fringes of the Left, that's not a place I want to see America go. Most Americans don't want to see it, either, which is why he's sliding back in the polls again.

Here's another tax-related problem with Obama's plans:

OK, so we all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as Kimberly Strassel and others have been pointing out, "40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes."

What if, not implausibly, in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more? At that point, the majority of Americans not paying taxes would elect leaders who decide how much the minority must fork over to the government — to be redistributed to the majority through government programs and services.

A majority of American would enjoy representation without taxation.

Just as a reminder, this idea of taxation without representation is precisely what prompted the Boston Tea Party. Obama's economic policies are an absolute disaster in the making. This country cannot afford for Obama to unleash his socialist plans on it.

Finally, we have some comparisons between the Obamessiah's rhetoric and record:

Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience-- none in an executive capacity-- and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.

Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.

Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

The John McCain website has this list of direct comparisons between the Obama-Biden rhetoric and record, especially on energy and the economy, complete with their own words and references to back them up. Go read it - it's very illuminating.

This is similar to the argument that simple change isn't as important as what kind of change these candidates will bring. The problem is that what little experience there is on the Obama-Biden campaign is the wrong experience. The change they bring will be the wrong change for America's prosperity and security. And that's a distinct difference between their rhetoric and their record.

Spread the truth - a President Obama will be very, very bad for America.

There's my two cents.