Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Case Agaist Obama - Race Over Reason?

I am a Racist.

At least that is what the Democratic Party is going to try and make me believe. As Republicans begin building the case against Barack Hussein Obama, we are going to be met with counter attacks void of reason but full of emotion.

For instance, How can the Republicans feel that they are doing the right thing by blocking the election of the first black president of the United States? As if because he is Black and because he is a major party nominee, he deserves to be President. Can someone please explain to me how the color of a man's skin qualifies him to be President? I was under the assumption that it was the content of his character?!?

So let's look at his policies, let's look at his character. In doing so, we can fight emotion with reason. we will always be labelled as the racist party because we are fighting to block a "Black President"... but what we are really doing is attempting to preserve the fundamental rights and roles of the government by supporting the candidate who has a more conservative understanding of the founding of this nation, and the role that the government should play in our lives.

Barack Obama is a Marxist. Most youths who support him don't even fully understand what this means, or what it means to a truly free America.

Obama lives by the dictum of taking from those who have to give to those in need... no free will or free choice about it. If you have it, they deserve it... regardless of what they did or did not do to earn it.

Visit his campaign website and look at his policies.

Regarding Education - He plans to fully federalize a state institution of education. Where in the 10th Amendment does it stipulate that the States must give up rights such as education of their population?

Regarding Energy - Obama is a supporter of the "Tax the Profits" ideology coming out of the Senate regarding Oil. Instead of taxing the oil industry, which will only help to bankrupt and turn the industry over to the government (can you believe it, under President Obama we will seize the private lands of the Oil Fields and nationalize them! In America!?!) Instead of putting faith in the private sector, and incentivize car companies and power companies who offer alternative energy... or what about providing tax breaks for those who go solar at their homes? Or who buy fully electric cars? Instead, the answer to Obama is to seize Private Property and have the government regulate energy entirely on behalf of the people. (sounds more like Venezuela than America)

Socialized Health care - A system which most countries are currently trying to move away from, Barack Obama will rush the US headstrong into a crippling system that will further bankrupt this nation. Instead of removing regulation on the health care industry (which is an industry, not a right) and having faith that the free market will fill the need of the many by offering low cost group care programs, the intent of Obama is to seize the health care system and nationalize care, cost, and coverage. He complains that the HMO doesn't know what the best doctor is for you, so how is a bureaucrat in DC going to know any more? This is a ploy.

Race over reason... Unless his supporters are true socialists, they have to be blinded by being part of a group that elected the First Black President... never mind that there are more able candidates, more appropriate (non socialist) policies, or more appropriate "causes". Their reason is blinded by race, by the color of a man's skin...

I challenge that anyone supporting Obama because he is the going to be the First Black President, or anyone who uses that as a campaign cry, is the actual racist.

When I see a man, I see character... content filled character. I am not so low as to rally around the campfire of skin color. I demand content!

Obama is a black man running for President... who cares? I need a candidate who understands that this country does NOT need to go the way of the Soviet Union... we demand politicians who understand that this is a Free Nation. Period.


  1. How can the Republicans be labeled the racist party after Hillary's comments about "hard working Americans, white Americans"? The Appalachian primaries are enough to show that Democrats have plenty of racists in their ranks.

    What about Obama's education plan says they're federalizing it? To me it all reads "fund the laws we already have. Also fund some supplemental programs."

    Energy plans - Obama plans all kinds of incentives to encourage efficiency and alternative fuels. The windfall oil tax he's mentioned recently is silly, though, yeah. I haven't heard anything about seizing oil fields (got a link?) but if it's parts of national refuges that the government has unethically sold I'm in favor of un-selling them.

    Healthcare - Obama's plan very clearly states that he'll make an insurance plan available for us to purchase. That isn't seizing anything. It's a reasonable step toward universal health care without reducing our choices. It moves us toward the right to health care supplied to citizens of by every other developed nation. Name a developed country that's revoking that?

    If healthcare is an industry, not a right, why are hospitals with ERs legally required to treat everyone who comes in, even if they can't pay? If health care is a privilege, hospitals should be allowed to turn away people with a low credit score.

    It is pretty cool that he'll be the first black president, but the race card has two sides. It'll be both a plus and a minus for him in this election. Like you say, any Democrat who accuses the a Republican of not voting for him because of his color is silly.

  2. Jessi -

    "How can the ..." - Easy. The media will long forget WHAT was said and done in the Democratic Primary, in hopes of making the GOP look bad. Even if Democrats fell into a race game, it will all be turned on Republicans... Heck, they may even try to blame the GOP for interfering with the Democratic Primary by insighting racial tension amongst democrats...

    The seizing of oil fields is the next step... History has trends. If we follow the socialist trend any further, it will not be an historical trend, but a tragedy in the making, as our free country is destroyed.

    Healthcare is NOT the problem of the government. Where in the constitution does it state that the government must provide healthcare? It does not. So such a program will further change the way we view the roles of government, and will be another nail in the coffin of a free society (as it is purely a socialist idea - Universal Health Care)

    And people have to be treated because of lawsuits and the "new role" of the government. If I take my car into a mechanic, he should have the choice to fix it or not... That is his job, he should have a choice. A store or restaurant has the right to refuse service... BUT if you are a doctor, you MUST treat me based on my needs and your ability... THAT is the Marxist Dictum.

    BTW - Obama wont win in November... so he wont be the first Black President. :)

  3. Okay, if you're fine with hospitals refusing to treat people who might not have the money to pay for treatment, then it is logical to stick with completely private health care. A difference in morality underlies our different conclusions.

    I agree that our free country is tending toward destruction. However, I see loss of freedom in increased executive power to spy and prosecute... or worse, not prosecute, and just leave people to rot in prison forever -- people who were captured in airports or border crossings or their homes, not on a battlefield.

  4. Jessi -

    I am not so sure it is a morality issue. It is a personal property issue. The doctors paid their own money to pursue a career. They have to pay their debts. They get to choose how to practice. How can your logic of required servitude due to ability be applied to any other field? It cannot. So the medical profession is different? I know it is a tough pill to swallow (pun intended), but the principles of personal liberties should not exlude our doctors. As long as we live in a capitalist society, based on freedom of choice and freedom to pursue happiness, the doctors should be able to choose to treat however they deem appropriate.

    In response to your comment regarding loss of freedoms due to increase in executive powers - This is very valid, and I agree 100%. The federal government has grown too big for their britches (as my mother would say). They are overstepping their roles on a daily basis... and Obama will be a worse offender than Bush, if not entirely, in a different way altogether. The federal government needs to be downsized, and more focus should be put on the state and local governments, in accordance with the 10th amendment to the constitution... every law above and beyond the US Constitution is in violation of the 10th, and should be struck down by the Supreme Court... But I doubt we will see that happen... That is why we need responsible leaders in office... not the career politicians and Lobyist bedfellows that we have in there now!

  5. For the federal government overstepping its bounds -- I don't question that. It is not a topic I've put thought into (there's too much else to think about! haven't gone there yet) so I can't agree or disagree... although I'm inclined to agree with you.

    There are two morals here, and two questions. The laws that require ERs to treat people regardless of ability to pay are half-assed. They violate the principles of private property in the sense you describe. Our society is definitely based on private property rights, and these laws basically say that as a condition of operating a hospital, you have to fulfill this obligation that (IMO) should belong to society as a whole (via the goverment). I believe that a basic level of health care should be a right; a different moral imperative tells me that it is wrong for people to be unable to get help when they're sick or injured. That doesn't conflict with the hospital's private property rights if we all pay for this care through our taxes.

    So in theory it should be one way or the other. However, we don't all share the same sense of right and wrong, so at the moment we have this lame halfway condition, clearly not the best for anyone.

  6. The question then becomes, do I wish to have money taken by force (in the form of taxes) to pay for healthcare? This is a burden not addressed in the constitution, and as such is illegal. Unless we decide to include the concept of Universal Health into the constitution, it is illegal. THe taxes to be collected are supposed to be limited to the money necessary for the federl government to operate within the bounds of the constitution...

    But our Federal government does not hold the Constitution with much regard, anymore, now does it. Of course it doesn't... if it did, the document would get in the way of "progress".

    Helathcare would do more if they stopped the hopes of governemnt funding, and instead reached out for private fund raising (like Idol Gives Back style fundraising). This is the concept of free society giving more as individuals than as a collective... remember: If one person has ownership, something survives... If everyone has ownership, no one has to care enough for it's survival.