Saturday, November 01, 2008

...Obama isn't qualified to be President

Iraq Veteran to Obama: "you disrespected us..."

To all Hollywood pretentious types: "shut up and act..."


Anonymous said...

I saw this video a couple of days ago and have posted it at my site. It is moving and humbling. Thanks for sharing it.

Scott said...

Concerning the first video, I'll paste my comments from another blog here:

I'm in my 50s and I've never voted for a Democrat and it is likely I never will. I think Obama is the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most dangerous person ever nominated by either of the two major parties. And, I served active duty military for six years. However, I disagree with the video's thesis, at least as I understand it: "When you said the war in Iraq was a mistake, you disrespected every soldier" (my paraphrase). I guess that means we can never disagree with our government's decision to wage any war with our troops because as soon as we do, we are disrespecting our troops? He also mentions that the war was about promoting freedom. Well, it may be now, but that wasn't why we invaded Iraq in the first place. Don't get me wrong, once we were committed it would have been irresponsible to withdraw as many liberals have suggested. It still would be.

To summarize: disagreeing with a military action does not necessarily equate with disrespecting our troops. And, I am willing to bet that there are people in the military who think the war in Iraq is a mistake, and some of them will even vote for Obama.

Having said all that, I too found the video to be moving.

doug said...

Steve, don't know if you've seen this one...

roadwolf said...

I have seen the first video already (made the rounds at work and by my pastor this week, so the viral is in deep now). I will agree with what Scott said about three sentences into his post.

You can question the administration's plans to go to war and it's results and still have respect for troops. A true patriot can see the difference and not just blindly put a yellow ribbon on the car without thinking about what they are supporting.

The second video is just silly... laced with sarcasm and poking fun at the "elite" celebrity video on going out and voting. Seriously, does their right to advocate end when they enter into the studio doors and onto the set. You may not like what they have to say, but to say just "Shut up and act", well that is really beyond the pale. I mean, do we tell Michael W. Smith to pipe down when he extols the virtues of G.W. Bush and family, in a concert setting no less, or tell any other number of folks who bear the banner of conservatism and right wing evangelical Christianity to button up. Say Steve, how about getting back to what you said Audience One was about in the beginning and "Shut and Sing". See, that is what you are talking about here.

Criticize these celebrities and actors all you want, what they are advocating is, in the end, not a bad thing, is it really? People going out on Election Day and casting a ballot for the candidate of their choice.

Isn't it great to be in America where you can do that?

Rick Frueh said...

If he wins, we will say God thought he was unqualified? In the end, politics is a colossal distraction for the church as a whole. On November 5th reality resumes and the theatrical production which wasted over a billion dollars ends.

We must be about our Father's business - the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Carla said...


while I will agree that politics can be a distraction (as can anything else), I don't think being aware and informed of the candidates and their positions on various issues is a bad thing. I believe you can do that and still be about the Lord's business.

If, for whatever reason God ordains is right, Obama wins this election and becomes the next president of the United States, does that automatically mean he is "qualified" to run the country in a good way? No, I don't believe it does - I believe it means God put him there for God's reasons, regardless of whether he's "qualified" to hold that office in the first place.

FWIW - Carla

Rick Frueh said...

If Obama does get elected, it does mean that many things were said and done, as well as voted, in opposition to the will of God by believers.

"I don't think being aware and informed of the candidates and their positions on various issues is a bad thing."

But we still cannot know God's will. I would suggest that a believer vote quietly and with humility, recognizing he doesn't actually know the will of God, rather than castigate a sinner as if we knew God's will. And if God elevates Obama, then we should show him honor rather than consistently murmur and attack him as was done to Clinton.

We will see if we can obey the Word even if Obama is elected. Politics sometimes makes believers compromise parts of God's commandments.

Carla said...


you said "If Obama does get elected, it does mean that many things were said and done, as well as voted, in opposition to the will of God by believers."

I have to be honest and say I really don't understand that statement. If the candidate that ends up in the White House were a professing atheist or an outspoken, practising Satanist, and God's people did not vote for him, but God placed him there anyway, would you still say that God's people acted in opposition to His will if they chose not to endorse such an obviously ungodly candidate?

While we certainly cannot know what God is going to do, or His ultimate reasons for doing it, we certainly can know (and should know as professing believers) what is good, what is right, what is moral and what is not. We should endorse those things, support those things, and give our vote to those things as is in accordance with God's written word that we do have available to us to read and understand.

Murder, rape and robbery are all things that decent, moral people stand up and speak out against - all things that there are laws against - and yet God still permits these things to take place every day in every location around the world. Are we to say that since God allows them then it's God's will and we should stop speaking out against them? It seems as though by your reasoning that's what you're saying.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong on that.

JamesL said...

After reading a couple of post here I believe some are misunderstanding the gravity of what this soldier is saying. The DNC has invested itself in the DEFEAT of our troops overseas. take for example , Murtha's preening before the camera calling Marines murderers! Since then they have been cleared of then charges! Brother, to be an elected official and to run your mouth like that is TREASON! Take for example, Harry Reid declaring the surge a failure before it even took effect! There are numerous other examples, but the fact is Obama and company aren't just disagreeing with the war they are in fact working against the American fighting man! During the Civil War Lincoln jailed congressmen who were sympathetic to the South and I believe we should have locked up Murtha and other Dems a long time ago. When the war is a war of hearts and minds statements like Obama's and the other Dems are deserving of condemnation.
As an aside, I consider it ironic that the people such as SDS who called our people "baby killers" when they returned from Vietnam fighting communist are the same people who, along with their guy Obama, try to promote abortion and defeat legislation such as the Infant Protection Act. Traitors and baby killers fill up the ranks of today's DNC.

musicmike said...

The fact that Lincoln jailed southern sympathizers does not in reality prove your point. It just proves that Lincoln was not nearly as honorable a man or president as many think he was.

JamesL said...

When your at war the survival of your country is at stake. He was constitutionally and morally justified in his actions to preserve the union. The fact that I am having to even defend the actions of Lincoln while at war speak volumes of the ignorance of Americans for what it means to be at war. Its not a football game where you go back to the locker room and give an interview. The survival of a nation is at stake when troops are committed to war. It is utterly asinine to think you can have LAWMAKERS who sit in on intelligence briefings, fund a war effort, and make national security decisions openly aid and abet the enemy with comments that embolden the enemies of your country whether it was the CSA nearly 150 years ago or AQI today. In case you have missed it (and I am not being facetious) AQ fighters have been met and destroyed on the field in Iraq. Note carefully, I am not proposing the gagging of lawmakers when the debate is going to go to war. But once committed, go all the way or, resign from office. Once again, I am incredulous that this discussion needs to be had in the first place.