This morning, I am "bitter" and "clingy." Okay, not really. I am, however, very disappointed in the US citizens for the choice they made. I continue to wonder why the result is what it is.

According to several polls, many people voted for President-elect Obama even though they felt that Senator McCain had the right experience to be President. What does that say about the US voters? A co-worker of mine, not originally from the US, said this yesterday "One of the problems with a democracy is that even the uneducated get to vote." I wouldn't go that far, but yesterday's results do make one wonder why people chose to vote an inexperienced person into the highest office in our country. Did they do it just because they "blame" the Republicans for the current economic crisis, ignoring the fact that the Democrats are the ones who insisted that loans be made available to everyone, regardless of income level? Did they do it because they saw a charismatic, well-spoken, and nice-looking person who made them "feel good" (regardless of what he actually believes)? Did they do it because they wanted to be part of history by electing the first African-American President? I don't know.

I'm sure that a lot of pundits who will provide their thoughts about what happened, and why. But, just as a regular person, I think it will be a very long time before I will understand. Choosing personality over substance does not make sense to me. And the substance of President-elect Obama, based on his own words over the years, has me worried about the "changes" to come to our great nation. Yes, there will be "change". But, will the "change" be for the better?

Last week, Senator Obama said that 95% of people who make less than $250,000 a year would get a "tax cut" under his plan. I went out to his web site, put in our numbers (and no, we don't come near that number) and did not get back an answer that I would get a tax cut. Now, in Senator Obama's "infomercial" tonight, he said "$200,000." And, Senator Biden earlier this week, referred to a number of $150,000.

Hmmm... I wonder if the number will continue to drop until it reaches 0, and in fact, becomes a tax increase instead. It seems likely, just based on the changes in the past week.

Senator Obama talks a lot about change. And, yes, I suspect that an Obama presidency would definitely bring change. But, is it the kind of change that we want? Or, when he is done with us, would "change" (as in small denominations of money) be all that we have left?

To clarify what Senator Biden said recently, Barack Obama says "...a period of transition in a new administration is always one in which we have to be vigilant..." and "...We have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy that others don't take advantage of it..." [statements made in Richmond, VA, before a panel of foreign policy and military experts]

If I were a conspiracy monger, I might think Senator Obama implies that any democratic transition is a bad thing. And, at the risk of further "fear mongering," one could further conclude that these statements are a premise to setting up an Obama for life Presidency. I'm sure that sounds absurd, but with a Democrat "super majority," could the 22nd amendment be repealed, allowing Obama to serve as President for more than eight years (think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, or the late Saddam Hussein)? Just something to think about as we also vote for Senators and Representatives in less than two weeks.

Over the weekend, Senator Joe Biden said that he, as a student of history, is certain that there will be a "generated crisis" during the first six months of a Barack Obama presidency that will "test" his (Obama's) leadership. Furthermore, he said that said administration would make some decisions that people would not like and we should all be ready to "support" them - no matter what. These are the words of Senator Obama's vice-presidential choice? Perhaps Senator Obama's VP choice should make us question his decision-making abilities even more so than his previous associations with people such as Reverend Wright and William Ayers? But, I digress from my original thoughts.

The point that I wanted to get to is this: If we should expect any new President to have to deal with a manufactured crisis to "test" him in the first six months, wouldn't it be better to have a President that has experience to prove that he can handle a crisis? Senator McCain has proven he can handle a crisis. Whether or not you agree with him in all instances, Senator McCain has a history that shows he "can take it." We have no data about how Senator Obama would respond to a crisis, because he has no experience. There has been much talk from the mainstream media about how ill-prepared Governor Palin is to be "one heart-beat away from the Presidency," but she appears to have more executive experience than does Senator Obama who would be the President. To the Obama campaign, I ask: What experience does Senator Obama have as something other than a community organizer and one-term U.S. Senator that indicates he is ready to be President of the greatest nation on earth? Maybe if I could see it, I might feel better about a President Obama, be less bitter, and stop clinging to my guns and my Bible.

As one of the "silent majority," I can be silent no more. The reasons are many, but the proverbial straw that broke this particular camel's back is the latest fiasco with the Presidential election of 2008. I'm tired of the liberal lies. I'm tired of hearing regular, hard-working United States citizens referred to as "bitter" and "racist." I'm tired of the liberal record that is being hidden and distorted. And, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we will lose this election, that we have no chance.

Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. That is not a racist comment; it is a fact. And, at present, both houses of Congress are led by Democrats. So, imagine what could happen with no "checks-and-balances." I know the liberal press would accuse me of "fear mongering," but I see it as a reality check.