Why Obama Should NOT Be President

Let me count the reasons...

Obama Jugend Korps

Obama youth demonstrate platoon drill in honor of the Obamafurer.



Admittedly, this Obama Youth Corps has a bit of work to do to match the physical development and skill of the youth group that they emulate, but some believe that there will be plenty of time for the Obamafurer to perfect the Obama Jugend Korps while saving the world and ushering in a millenia of peace and prosperity. Sieg Heil!

Obama's Confusion About the 'Iraq Distraction'

In today's Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin and Lee Casey pull the veil of naivete off the Left's assertion that Iraq is a "distraction" in the War on Terror

As in many other conflicts in American history, our enemies in this war operate in many geographically distinct theaters. The essence of being a good commander in chief is appreciating the connections among these theaters -- including the adversary's willingness to open new fronts -- rather than obsessing about where the last enemy attack originated.

This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II when he chose to dedicate initially the bulk of American resources to the European theater, believing that destroying Hitler's Reich was the most urgent task and that Imperial Japan could be dealt with in turn; history proved him right. Yet, under the Obama-Biden playbook, FDR blundered by getting distracted from the "real" war -- in the Pacific, where America had been attacked.

Though I've seen it countless times, the naivete of the Left never ceases to amaze me. It's hard to believe that a particular political party could be so myopic and incredibly inept at recognizing threats to the United States--and then, even after slapped in the face by those threats, remain totally inept at dealing with them.

Perhaps such profound dysfunction stems from the fact that the Left lacks a fundamental understanding of evil--actually, the Left refuses to admit evil even exists (except maybe in conservatives).

Not only is this seen in the War on Terror, but is acutely evident in how liberals want to deal with threats on the horizon of the world stage.

Instead of meeting those growing threats with strength and decisiveness, the Left desperately seeks to coddle and appease those threats. They seek to negotiate with evil, treating it as if it's methods and intentions were legitimate.

Rivkin and Casey also call out this dangerous predilection from Barack Obama and others in the Left:

Having a president try and fail fundamentally damages the nation's own credibility. The textbook example of this phenomenon remains Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's taking the measure of a young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy in the 1961 Vienna Summit meeting. Khrushchev found Kennedy to be ill-informed and weak, and consequently embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba. Although Kennedy ultimately proved that he was made of sterner stuff, the world was nevertheless brought to the very brink of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The next president will likely be similarly tested by Russia and by Iran

The dangerous naivete of Barack Obama and Joe Biden render them both a incredibly dangerous proposition at the nation's helm.

This shocking reality isn't even something that must be gleaned through guesswork and intimation; Joe Biden's record proves it for him, and Barack Obama has proudly told us he will gut the U.S. military if he becomes president. He has also made clear his willingness to sit down as equals with the belligerent, nuclear-intent, Israel-hating thug of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Our nation is about to make a profound decision about our safety and welfare. Let us hope our vision is clear enough to make the right call. If we choose gullibility, we will surely pay a heavy price.

Politico Coverage of Obama-Ayers Association

More on Barack Obama's associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers from The Politico.

The article says that Ayers was persona non grata at a liberal educators’ conference in 2006. Yet it seems Obama has no reservations about being involved with him.

Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

Hmmm. If an unrepentant domestic terrorist who planted bombs in the U.S Capitol, the Pentagon and other government buildings--and still believes "I didn't do enough"--thinks Barack Obama is "the best thing since sliced bread," what does that say about Obama?

I wouldn't help launch the political career of anyone who believed significantly differently than I did; can we reasonably expect that Bill Ayers would?

I also wouldn't go over to someone's house for a meet-and-greet, serve on the board of a group they created and work with them on other projects if their ideology and their feelings about their country were significantly different than mine; can we reasonably expect that Barack Obama would?

Would you vote for someone who would pal around and work with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh?

Constitutional Amendment J would eliminate term limits, but now is not the time

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: South Dakota's Constitution was changed in 1992 that term limited congressional, legislative and constitutional office holders. This was immediately challenged since a state could not put term limits on congressional office holders. Thus, this amendment was changed the next year to include just legislators and our constitutional officers. Amendment J would remove legislators from being term limited, but the term limits on our constitutional officers would remain in effect. The resolution to amend was approved by the last session of South Dakota Legislature.

THE IDEA TO TERM limit legislators, as well as our constitutional officers and congressional office holders was done through a petition by the voters of South Dakota. This was first passed by more than a 64 percent majority at the ballot box in 1992, a healthy margin, and amended the following year removing congressional office holders. The term limit law said no legislator could serve in either the state House of Representatives or the state Senate for more than four consecutive terms, or a total of eight consecutive years.

Now, after a 16-year trial period, our legislators want to do away with their term limits, but leave our constitutional officers on the term limit list. Our state's governor was term limited some time before this to two four-year terms.

According to the pamphlet put together by the office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson, a Republican from Rapid City, Senator Bill Napoli, wrote for the proponents to do away with legislative term limits and the opponents' side was prepared by non-legislators Rick Skorupski of Frankfort and Jeff Partridge of rural Rapid City.

SENATOR NAPOLI CLAIMED term limits have destroyed our freedom to decide who we want to represent us. He also argues that because of term limits on legislators "in many instances the legislative sessions over the past 16 years have neither the institutional memory nor experience to deal with complex issues that have drastic consequences to the citizens of South Dakota."

He also complains that he has seen up to 30 percent turnover in the Legislature as a result of the term limit law.

THE PROPONENT WRITERS say, "No way to 'J'." Prior to term limits, "the system let a handful of powerful politicians cut deals with special interest lobbyists in return for campaign cash they could use to get reelected, decade after decade..."

They also claim the attempt to do away with term limits "is a blatant power grab--trying to remove term limits on themselves..."

In other words, Constitutional Amendment J is very much self-serving for our legislators.

I have to agree with the proponents for keeping term limits where they are for various reasons.

When the proposal of term limits first surfaced I editorially endorsed it. After reporting on several legislative sessions there was no question about the legislative leadership--long time leadership.

TWO OF THESE LEADERS both had very direct relationships, with industries controlled by the state. The very laws they passed were watered down versions of more restrictive laws needed. Sadly, they had the backing to do the watering down. As far as I was concerned, session after session, the smell of their special interests got worse.

From the first, the cry of losing "historical, or institutional, memory and experience" was heard across South Dakota. But, instead of losing this memory and experience, South Dakota gained new and fresh thinking in Pierre and more competitive elections. It also gave more South Dakotans a better advantage to serve. And instead of destroying the freedom of who we want to represent us in Pierre, the door is opened further to elect those with these fresh ideas and thinking.

Instead of seeing up to 30 percent turnover because of term limits the mandatory revolving door continues to bring in new legislators who are not branded with the old ways Pierre did things.

Perhaps the most important reason why South Dakotans should be opposing Constitutional Amendment J is it being proposed by the very people eliminating the term limits who would benefit the most to keeping them in office.

THERE'S NO QUESTION that term limits have caused the loss of some outstanding legislators but, at the same time, it has brought many quality people to Pierre.

If institutional memory and experience is so important a suggestion being passed around is to defeat "J" this year. Then have the voters of South Dakota, initiate a new proposal extending the term limits from eight years in one house or the other to 12 years, six two-year terms instead of four. Yes, I like that idea. That really has some potential. A vote "No" this time will leave our Constitution as it is....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.