Determining My Presidential Vote

When determining for whom to cast my vote, I look for the candidate who will most closely uphold the Constitution of the United States (and his state constitution, if a state office). But the Constitution is merely the framework of government. The Declaration of Independence defines the purpose of government: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.

What rights are to be secured? The Declaration tells us that governments secure “inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

So when a candidate takes an oath to uphold the Constitution they are taking an oath to secure these inalienable rights.

While no candidate perfectly embodies the principles of the Declaration, I will cast my vote for President on behalf of Senator John McCain for the following reasons:

Life:
John McCain holds to the scientific fact that life begins at conception. Barak Obama says that knowing when life begins or when one obtains rights is above his pay grade. But if you do not know when life or rights begin then how do you know that the very abortion policies you uphold do not end a life or deny a right? While McCain is wrong to support embryonic stem cell research, he is far and away closer to holding the inalienable right of life than Obama.

Second, McCain would appoint judges who hold to the intent of the Constitutional Framers and therefore the Declaration. Obama would appoint judges who have “empathy”. Empathy may be in the scope of the legislative branch but it is not within the purpose of judges. Judges are to wield justice based on a standard which is defined in our Constitution.

If judges can make up what the Constitution says as the go along (the living document concept) then a mini Constitutional Convention convenes every time the judges meet. Plus, one wonders why there was a need to have a section on Amendments in the Constitution.
Advantage: McCain

Liberty:
Obama says he will “fundamentally transform America.” A fundamental is the foundation or the essential elements of something. Our nation’s foundation is stated in the Declaration of Independence. If you “fundamentally transform” something you are changing it’s foundation. Obama doesn’t say explicitly how he will “fundamentally transform America” but we have some clues.

For example, his “spread the wealth” comment. Are we really supposed to believe that the Founders believed the government should take money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn’t earn it? Especially given that they did not institute an income tax but raised revenue through tariffs. How is using the force of government to take money from you and give it to me an example of Liberty? That’s not liberty. That’s compulsion.
Advantage: McCain

Pursuit of Happiness:
The Founders didn’t mean by happiness that I do whatever I want. They meant the pursuit of the common good. They recognized that only a limited government could pursue the common good. They were afraid of a strong central government. This was why our first government was framed under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles, however, provided for too weak of a government. However, the Constitution was nearly not ratified because of fears that it would lead to too strong a government.

McCain has been a staunch opponent of pork spending and, for the most part, limiting government to it’s constitutional framework. Obama wants to increase government drastically – universal health care, universal pre-school, etc. Obama wants to raise taxes not to raise revenue but for “fairness”. But it is only “fair” to those of whom he approves.
Advantage: McCain

Conclusion:
Senator McCain is much closer to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution which secures them than is Senator Obama. It is not even close. That is why I am voting for John McCain to be our next President of the United States.

Previous posts on the Presidential race:
Spreading the Wealth
Senator Obama’s Halloween Message
The Columbian Endorses Obama
Columbian Endorses Obama – Pt. 2
Columbian Endorses Obama – Leadership
Columbian Endorses Obama – Judgment
Columbian Endorses Obama – Iraq War

Updated: To add links for the Previous Post section.

Columbian Endorses Obama - Iraq War

This is the fifth in a series of comments regarding The Columbian’s endorsement in the presidential campaign.

The Columbian claims that “any successful reformer must excel in leadership and judgment. In the past several months Obama has distanced himself as the superior candidate in those two areas.”


On the Iraq War, The Columbian says “Obama prefers a quicker withdrawal of troops than we would like, but his proven leadership and solid judgment indicate he can resolve the Iraq dilemma collaboratively.”

Collaboratively means to work together. With whom exactly will Obama work that hasn’t already been done by the current administration?

Iraq? Pakistan? England? Great Britain? Already being done.

The UN? An organization which sits thugs on its Human Rights commission, routinely turns it s head from human rights violations (e.g. Darfur), has done nothing to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, ran the Iraq Food for Oil scandal, and had at least 16 resolutions against Iraq and their weapons program.

France? Profiters from the Oil for Food scandal under Chirac. Maybe now under Sarkozy who wishes to work more closely with the U.S. than Chirac. But then that occurred under the current administration which is working with France.

al-Qaeda? As was famously pointed out, what would Obama say that would change their minds about killing us? Would he charm them with his intelligence, with his eloquence, with his movie star good-looks?

Obama, in fact, staunchly opposed the surge, a strategy recommended by General Petraeus and supported by Senator McCain. Obama continued to claim it was the wrong strategy even after it was clear the surge was working.

Then, when the situation on the ground in Iraq was becoming stable and the Iraqi’s started talking of a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, Obama audaciously claimed that the Iraqi’s were agreeing with his view that there needed to be a timetable on withdraw. But the Iraqi’s only talked about a timetable because the situation had improved so drastically; an improvement that came about by the very surge policy that Obama opposed.

Put another way, had Obama’s position prevailed the violence in Iraq would have continued (what was going to stop it – talk?). Or we would have left and Iraq would have likely descended into civil war where thousands of innocent people would have perished including those Iraqis who had the courage to stand along side us.

McCain was right. Obama was wrong. Where was Obama’s solid judgment. Obama went with the left wing anti-war wing of his party and with the way the country was leaning. McCain said the right thing to do is the surge even if it is not popular. He listened to the military leaders on the ground. Obama listened to what was politically expedient.

It was McCain who showed “proven leadership and solid judgment” not Obama.

And let’s not forget Obama’s “proven leadership and solid judgment” when Russia went deep into Georgia territory in their conflict over South Ossetia. As Reuters reported, Obama stated, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint”

That’s like telling both the rapist and victim “to show restraint”.

The Columbian only provided sweeping generalizations in their endorsement of Obama. They provided no examples (i.e. evidence) to support their generalizations because the facts (i.e. evidence) would show their generalizations to be suspect.

McCain has proven his leadership over his years in the Senate, as a Navy fighter pilot, and as a POW. As this series has shown in the examples provided, McCain has shown solid judgment on the most critical issues of our time.

When intellectually honest people actually look at the FACTS it becomes clear that John McCain is far and above more qualified to lead the greatest nation on earth than Barak Obama.



Previous posts:
The Columbian Endorses Obama
Columbian Endorses Obama – Pt. 2
Columbian Endorses Obama – Leadership
Columbian Endorses Obama – Judgment

Updated: To add links for the Previous Post section.

Columbian Endorses Obama - Leadership

This is the third in a series of comments regarding The Columbian’s endorsement in the presidential campaign.

The Columbian claims that “any successful reformer must excel in leadership and judgment. In the past several months Obama has distanced himself as the superior candidate in those two areas.”

For leadership, they claim that Obama has united his own Democratic Party “even reaching beyond his party to speak to all Americans. McCain, in stark contrast, continues to slog through a fractious Republican Party that often is his worst enemy.”

Two problems exist with this assessment.

First, this is contradictory. A reformer often must fight their very own party. That’s the point. Reform comes from standing on principle against those who only care about their own self-interests. McCain has often gone against his own party standing upon the principles of what is good for the country. When you go against the powers to be, of course, there will be disunity.

Where has Obama ever gone against his party’s leadership? Where has he stood up and said “No!” to Pelosi and Reid? When you simply go along with others, of course, you are united with them. That’s what being united means! But it also means you are not necessarily a reformer.

Therefore, based on The Columbian’s own standard, that a “successful reformer must excel in leadership”, Obama fails the leadership criteria for being a successful reformer.

Second, if McCain is truly “slog[ging] through a fractious Republican Party” has is it that Obama continues to claim that McCain has sided with Bush over 90% of the time. In fact, the Democratic strategy has been to tie any Republican Congressional incumbent to Bush. In other words, the Republicans are united!

So if Obama’s claim is true about McCain then the Columbian’s claim that the Republican Party is rebellious, unruly, and irritable is false. If The Columbian’s claim is true then Obama and the Democratic Party are engaged in a lie. Either way, Obama fails to pass The Columbian’s own standard.

Previous posts:
The Columbian Endorses Obama
Columbian Endorses Obama – Pt. 2

Columbian Endorses Obama - Pt. 2

I posted previously on The Columbian’s “no distinguishable impact” endorsement of Senator Barak Obama. They claimed that their opinion was “offered more to stimulate conversation than to change minds.” See The Columbian Endorses Obama for why their claim is specious.

I suspect their real motive was to provide cover for the audacious reasons The Columbian has for endorsing Obama.

They are quick to give a disclaimer that they “are wary of a few past relationships [Obama’s] had with controversial figures. McCain carries that same baggage to a lesser degree.”

Yet The Columbian provides no examples of these relationships for either candidate. They simply throw out a generalization with no corresponding evidence.

What do the following have in common besides having relationships with Senator Obama: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga.

The answer: Each has, in word and/or deed, expressed hatred for America. Some are explicit anti-Semites.

Are we to believe that Senator McCain has had relationships with haters of America? Really?

The Obama camp says that these were just happenstances of history, coincidences of bumping into these individuals while going about his life.

How is it, then, that Obama continually bumped into those who haters of America? How is it that McCain, 25 years older, has not happened upon anti-American individuals time after time? Could it be because Obama runs in those circles and McCain does not?

It speaks volumes that the only way The Columbian can make their endorsement seem credible is to smear Obama’s opposition.

Overturning Roe v. Wade

abcnews.com has posted a report by AP Correspondent Jim Davenport that Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain told a South Carolina audience that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

I don't know if McCain is serious about this or just engaging in political pandering but I am sure that pro-choice organizations will deride this as trying to take away a woman's right to choose.

It's fair to ask what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Would abortion become illegal throughout the nation? The answer is no. The question of abortion would be returned to each state. We'd see a variety of abortion laws from state to state - some more restrictive, some more open.

But proponents of choice do not want the states to have the choice to choose because they know that the vast number of states and Americans think that abortion should be, as Bill Clinton stated, "safe, legal, and rare." (emphasis mine)

For the Planned Parenthoods and the NARALs of the world, it is far easier to convince five judges sympathetic to their ideology to mandate the terminating of unborn human children than it is to convince the legislatures of 50 states.