Obama, Osama and Chelsea’s Mama

Obama, Osama and Chelsea’s Mama
Vol: 81 Issue: 4 Wednesday, June 4, 2008

There was a sense of something approaching pathos to Hillary Clinton’s ‘victory’ speech after defeating Barack Obama in South Dakota.

While she trounced Obama in South Dakota, it was a Pyrrhic victory; a flurry of last-minute super-delegate pledges put him over the top.

That means, (if this were anybody but Hillary Clinton, and if this were any party but the Democrats), that Obama is the official nominee.

But this IS the Democrats and we ARE talking about Hillary, so the fact Obama declared victory is as irrelevant as the delegate count.

(After all, George Bush declared victory 78 days before Al Gore was forced to concede by the Supreme Court.)

Back then, Al Gore claimed victory based on his slight lead over George Bush in the popular vote. Of course, that isn’t how presidential elections are decided in America.

They are decided based on who wins the most pledged ‘electors’ in the Electoral College, in much the same way that Obama is the nominee based on having won the most pledged delegates.

There is something deliciously ironic about the spectacle of Hillary Clinton pulling an Al Gore, and the Democratic Party standing in for the Supreme Court.

If the DNC is right now, then it was wrong in 2000 and Al Gore is NOT the man “who used to be the next president of the United States” after all.

AND — if it was right in 2000 — then Hillary Clinton is the rightful nominee of the Democrats who lost to Barack Obama on a ‘technicality.’

Following the template set forth by Election 2000, if Obama gets the nomination, it will be because he was ‘selected and not elected’ because he didn’t win the popular vote.

When George Bush was declared the winner of Election 2000, it was because he came from a white political family with a ‘sense of entitlement.’

(So did Gore, but that’s different, somehow.)

And the same rules apply now. Hillary is ‘entitled’ because she is a white woman, and Barack Obama is entitled because he is a black man.

The only candidate without a claim of entitlement is a war hero who served six years in a POW camp.


When one considers the fact the United States is still at war, one would think that McCain’s military background would be an asset.

But evidently, what the Democrats want is to have a history-making Commander-in-Chief in office when America surrenders to Osama bin Laden’s forces.

In restating her case last night following the South Dakota primary, she reminded voters that the only thing she wanted more than universal health care was to ‘end’ (not win) the war.

But she voted FOR the war. Barack Obama says that proves she doesn’t have the judgment necessary for Commander in Chief.

In 2004, Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

Barack Obama voted for every war-funding bill that came before the Senate — until he decided to run for president. So he was against the war, then for it, and now against it again.

(That puts him one up on Hillary, who was merely for the war before she was against it. )

In terms of proven judgment, Hillary married Bill Clinton. (Need I say more?) And Barack Obama was a member in good standing of the Trinity United Church for twenty years.

Hillary’s closest associates are mainly rich immigrants with ties to foreign governments (Norman Hsu, James Riaydi, Johnny Huang) and high-profile criminals (Peter Paul, Sandy Berger, Web Hubbell).

Obama’s closest associates are high profile criminals (Tony Rezko, William Ayres) and black racists with ties to the Nation of Islam.

John McCain’s closest associates are former war heroes, the captains of industry, and the leaders of the free world.

Barack Obama is halfway through his first term as a US senator. Hillary Clinton is two years into her second term as a US senator.

John McCain has been in the House and Senate since 1982. When John McCain was first elected to national office, Hillary Clinton was 34. Barack Obama was 21.

Hillary is running on her experience. Obama is running on his judgment. McCain is running on winning the war with al-Qaead in Iraq and elsewhere.

I’m just thinking about running away.

Two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul described conditions in the Church Age as they will exist in the time just before the return of Christ.

The Church is universal, not national. There are members of the Body of Christ in every nation on earth. But only one nation on earth is popularly considered to be the world’s ‘most Christian’ nation — the United States of America.

It is America’s Christian persona that made America a target for al-Qaeda in the first place. Osama identified the ‘enemies of Islam’ in his fatwa as “Zionist” Israel and “Crusader America”.

So when the Apostle Paul is describing conditions within the last days’ Church, it is no stretch to conclude that Paul is using America as a template for the last days Church.

It is difficult to argue against that identification when one compares the politics of America’s Silly Season with the morals Paul ascribes to the last days Church.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

I am not intending to be political here. Its about politics, but the political situation is the object of the lesson, not the lesson itself.

To tell you the truth, I’ve about reached the point where I don’t care who wins — we don’t even have a choice of the least offensive.

Hillary Clinton’s health care plan would bankrupt the country, Barack Obama national security plan involves surrendering it to the Islamists, and John McCain would turn the country over to the environmentalists. (Gee, which do I want the most?)

Instead, I want you to notice just how perfectly Paul’s description mirrors today’s political environment.

There is not a single point on Paul’s list that one cannot find paraphrased somewhere in one of the candidate’s election platforms, or expressed by a leader of one party or the other. And if there is a central theme common to all three candidacies, how would you summarize it?

Here is how the New York Times summarized a Clinton aide’s analysis of the politics of the day:

“The aide said Mrs. Clinton would continue to raise questions about Mr. Obama s readiness to face the many economic and national security challenges facing the country. He did not rule out running some version of an advertisement that the campaign ran in the final days of the Pennsylvania race showing images of the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden and questioning Mr. Obama s fitness to lead in perilous times.

Osama, Obama and Chelsea’s Mama. ‘Perilous times’ is almost an understatement.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s