Why Obama is more Dangerous to our Security than Carter

Many political pundits have stated that an Obama Presidency would be a second Carter Term. There are indeed some comparisons in that both seem to think that negotiation is the only way to address global issues. During Carters presidency the Military technological advantage the United States Had over the Soviet Union was almost lost. Carter canceled several defense projects such as the B-1 Lancer bomber program. Instead of defeating the Soviets, Carter sought to appease and negotiate with them. Obama has made it clear that he will take the same approach with our current enemies. The problem is that we live in a much more dangerous world today than in the 1970's. The Soviets were many things, but they were not suicidal. They sought to destroy America but were not willing to be destroyed in the process. So while Carter was pushing for negotiations the United states still had a Nuclear arsenal that could destroy the Soviets and the Soviets knew that. Our current crop of enemies on the other hand are not only willing to die, but see death as desirable when fighting the infidels. So while Obama negotiates with our enemies they are developing Nuclear weapons in the belief that their version of Armageddon will bring forth the twelfth Imam. So while Carter was Naive in dealing with the Soviets, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction served as a deterrence against overt Soviet Aggression. There is no such deterrent against the current crop of Islamic Terrorist. To elect Obama is to re-elect Carter to negotiate against an enemy that is not interested in negotiating. While the prospect of a McCain presidency is not my Idea of an Ideal presidency, the prospect of an Obama presidency literally frightens me. Even a Hillary Clinton did not frighten me that much, with her at least I could be assured she could to to our enemies what she did to her husband when she found out about the Lewinsky Affair. I understand it was not pretty.

Why I cannot Vote for Obama

Article, No to put to fine a point on it, and at the risk of beeing called politically incorect (as if I cared) but this is simply evil, right there with Stalin and Hitler.

It's easy to be tolerant when there are no absolutes

This Column points to a survey dealing with religious tolerance. The fact is that the survey points not to religious tolerance but to religious relativism. Tolerance is recognising and thus protecting the God given rights of individuals. Tolerance does not mean giving another belief systems the same truth status as yours. While all beliefs systems have truth in them, they cannot all be equally true in all aspects. Christians believe Jesus is God and the Messiah promised in the old Testament, Jews reject that and Muslims believe Jesus was merely a prophet and hold Mohammad as higher in the order of prophets. Now only of these can be true. The relativist says that all three are true since what is true for one may not be true to another. The thing is that truth is truth and it remains true regardless of individual belief.