I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:
Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.
Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.
End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.
Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!
Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.
Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?
Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?
Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.
Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.
Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.
Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.
All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:
Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).
I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.” It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.
Mitt Romney explains what he thinks the government's role in job creation is.
While no one can argue with low taxes, the rest of the list- remember this is in relation to the federal government- should give any conservative pause.
“Dynamic regulation,” seems to be an unusual position for one branding himself as a conservative. Flexible regulations with no relation to what they actually say would only cause confusion amongst business forced to attempt to comply with them. Reducing regulations, while seeking to prevent new ones would be a the best idea of a president looking to use his role to reduce the post-constitutional mentality of the modern federal government.
“Educational achievement.” The more the federal government has taken over education, the more it has degraded. Further federal subsidization or manipulation of what should be local or state matters will only serve to spend much more money and achieve poorer, albeit more “politically correct” results.
“Investment in research” This is code speak for spending tax dollars on federal projects. While this may create a few jobs, they are not the free market, and thus are a burden to the economy and not a benefit. Let the free market choose where to invest in research.
“Robust Competition” Again, here is something that one cannot really argue with. However, in light of his commitment to “dynamic regulation” and his own ObamaCare, Jr, one has to doubt seriously a President Romney’s commitment to the principles of a free market of “robust competition.”
“Free Trade” As far as this goes towards supporting multinational agreements that take American trade policy control outside of the US will be the extent to which it actually undermines trade policy that will benefit the US.
“Purposeful” Immigration. This is probably the most meaningless statement on the entire page. Every immigrant, illegal or otherwise, has a purpose in coming to America. More than likely, it is code for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is itself code for amnesty for illegal immigrants already here.
“Seeking to eliminate government waste” Even Obama utters this phrase from time to time. Merely streamlining existing government spending will not do anything to balance the budget or allow the free market to create jobs.
“Seeking to eliminate excessive litigation” This sounds good too, but who determines what is excessive? Is it referring to frivolous suits against corporations and businesses, or is it referring to litigation against the government’s overreach? Its pretty hard to tell.
“Runaway healthcare costs” The government has supposedly been battling this for a while. But it seems the more the government gets involved, the more skewed health care costs become. How will Romney attempt to battle “runaway healthcare costs?” Probably like he did as governor, that is, his own flavor of mandated healthcare insurance and government control thereof.
“Dependence on foreign oil” Romney, Obama and everyone else claims to want to do this. Yet since the creation of the Department of Energy, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. Will Romney roll back federal restrictions on exploration for oil, or perhaps return federally occupied lands to the states wherein they reside? It doesn’t seem likely.
America’s only economic agenda ought to be to ensure a free market and an honest judicial system in which to resolve disputes.
Reverse President Obama’s massive expansion of federal power
We must cut federal spending to free up resources for productive investment, and curtail ever-expanding federal authority to provide businesses with the certainty and stability they need to make those investments. As President, Mitt Romney will place a hard cap on federal spending, forcing Washington politicians to control the size and growth of government.
There are some serious flaws in the above. First and foremost, the President does not have the power of the purse, that lies with Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Second, The government must NOT cut spending to “free up resources for productive investment,” it must cut spending to return to solvency WITHOUT taking on more spending, no matter how “productive” it may promise to be.
Economic Competitiveness
Make America the most attractive place in the world to do business Today, more than ever, new businesses can choose where to form and existing ones can choose where to invest and hire. America has long been the most dynamic economy in the world, and we must not let our government change that. As President, Mitt Romney will:
Lower taxes on businesses to keep America competitive in the global economy
Slash bureaucratic red tape and place a hard cap on the impact that federal regulations can have on the economy
Limit the corrosive influence of union bosses on productive businesses
This sounds good, but instead of attempting to place an undefined “hard cap” on the impact of federal regulations, why not delete the actual regulations causing the problems. Well, again the problem is the fact that congress has the law making power, not the president. The most the executive branch can do is to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. How does a president limit “the corrosive influence” of union bosses on productive businesses? It would seem to me that labor laws are the jurisdiction of the states per the 10th amendment.
Free Trade On Fair Terms
Open markets on fair terms for our products and services around the world
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.
Who is defining fair? America must only accept agreements that are beneficial to itself. Our government is not a charity, and harming hardworking Americans to earn federal politicians international fame is disgusting. If the commitments that were “already made” are illegal agreements which the government did not have the authority to create or enforce, then they should be terminated as well.
Energy Security and Independence
Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels
We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.
We do not need to lower the amount of energy we use, or if we do, it is not a governmental concern. Government should neither be a partner, nor an obstacle, but the states and companies should lead the way in their own efforts. The best things the government could do is end immediately all subsidies for so-called alternative energy sources and let them fight for competitiveness on a level playing field. Necessity breeds invention, and those with the incentive and skill to perhaps make wind and solar energy work will be drowned out in the sea of subsidized “green” companies who do not have to improve their products or attain ever increasing levels of efficiency in order to be profitable.
Perhaps the most ominous phrase in this section, and the one which completely destroys Romney’s claims of free market champion is this: “Address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.” This should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves freedom because what this means is this: The people operating on the principle of freedom of economic choice are not making the decisions we (the government) like. Therefore, we need to nudge them (command economy, socialism) towards the things we think they should be purchasing.
Training and Preparing America’s Workers
Prepare the American workforce to succeed in a 21st-century economy
Our economy is rapidly changing. Some of the steps we must take to restart economic growth—for instance, expanding trade relationships and developing new sources of energy—will only hasten that evolution. We need to eliminate ineffective government handouts, and instead give workers the resources and responsibility to develop valuable skills and make the transition to new types of work.
The federal government has no role to train workers, nor to allocate tax payer money for the purpose. The federal government also has neither the credibility nor authority to determine what constitutes “valuable skills” or to plan the economy.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney does not have a conservative economic agenda which, even aside from the above analysis of his presidential economic platform, should be apparent from his endorsement of RomneyCare. He also lacks an understanding of the proper authority vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:
Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm
And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone
It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:
Genesis 4:5-9 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. (6) And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (7) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (8) And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (9) And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:
Genesis 4:10-11 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. (11) And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.
This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).
Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.
Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…
This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/
Casino gambling is not a wealth generating business. It is a parasite business, that leeches money out of a community. No goods are created and no services rendered.
Corruption
Greed is the drive, the promise of huge riches for just a few minutes of your time. The high taxes promised by casino owners is equivalent of the ultimate bribe. Politicians love money, especially when it doesn’t come from their pocket.
More government
The current proposed constitutional amendment creates more government bureaucracy, because of course someone will need to licsence and collect fees and ensure the local Casino monopolies are protected (from ballotpedia.com):
Create the Ohio casino control commission which will license and regulate casino operators, management companies retained by such casino operators, key employees, gaming-related vendors, and all gaming authorized by this constitutional provision.
Usurp local authority the Amendment would override the will of localities that may be opposed to Casinos.
Authorize the casinos to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the discretion of the casino operator and require that the casino facilities shall be subject to all state and local laws and provisions related to health and building codes, but that no local zoning, land use laws, subdivision regulations or similar provisions shall prohibit the development or operation of the casinos at the designated sites.
“Tax” on the poor
Casino gambling, much like the lottery, entices people to wager what they have in the hopes of impossible wealth. Those with lots of money may well go and waste some, but it is the poor who are lured most by the promise of free wealth. The state should not engage in immoral activities.
The proposed Ohio constitutional amendment may be viewed here
Obama and his campaign have talked about “post-racial” America. He ran a campaign on based on “unity” despite dividing his followers along racial lines on his campaign website. Consider the following brief exerts from Obama’s book, “Dreams from my father.” Whether Joyce is real, or a “composite” created by Obama (which is possible based on the preface, his feelings on racial identity are clear. Given his bi-racial heritage, he chose to adopt an African cultural identity. Certainly, no one can deny him that. And yet, when someone else decides to define themselves how they want, Obama lashes out viciously eviscerating them for not taking a “side” that he feels they should take (all of the exerts are from page 98-100 in the 2004 softback edition).
In his own words:
our worries seemed indistinguishable from those of the white kids around us. Surviving classes. Finding a well-paying gig after graduation. Trying to get laid. I had stumbled upon one of the well-kept secrets about black people: that most of us weren’t interested in revolt; that most of us were tired of thinking about race all the time; that if we preferred to keep to ourselves it was mainly because that was the easiest way to stop thinking about it, easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you. So why couldn’t I let it go? I don’t know. I didn’t have the luxury, I suppose, the certainty of the tribe. Grow up in Compton and survival becomes a revolutionary act. You get to college and your family is still back there rooting for you. They’re happy to see you escape; there’s no question of betrayal. But I hadn’t grown up in Compton, or Watts. I had nothing to escape from except my own inner doubt. I was more like the black students who had grown up in the suburbs, kids whose parents had already paid the price of escape. You could spot them right away by the way they talked, the people they sat with in the cafeteria. When pressed, they would sputter and explain that they refused to be categorized. They weren’t defined by the color of their skin, they would tell you. They were individuals.
It is clear by this that Obama has a disdain for those who reject a collective racialist identity for an individual one. It gets even better in the next section:
That’s how Joyce liked to talk. She was a good-looking woman, Joyce was, with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.
First, he builds up her physical attractiveness, especially to the black men. Then he goes for the kill. She doesn’t want to get involved with the BSA, so he converts her from a woman to a baby, ignorant and unwilling to get involved with something he believes is good. Throughout his book, Obama reveals how he self determined his own ethnic identity, molding himself into his own perception of an African man, not only rejecting the Anglo blood within himself, but connecting it with the rape of Malcom X’s mother. However, when Joyce attempts to chart her own ethnic identity, Barack slams her hard:
“I’m not black,” Joyce said. “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No-it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am….”
Its clear from this that Joyce has a diverse heritage. Why should she be forced to exclude any part of it (including the “something else” which Barack so smoothly derides. Barack makes it seem like the “they” she is talking about is African-Americans or blacks as a collective whole. But this is deceptive. The “they” she is referring to here is very likely the racialized radicals like Obama and his mentor Frank Marshal Davis and later on Reverend Wright. The radicals must have constantly harassed Joyce about being a sell-out or “uncle Tom” pressuring her to despise the totality of her heritage and cast her lot with the racialized marxists (as we shall see later in the paragraph after the discussion on Joyce). Obama continues to rip Joyce:
They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. It wasn’t a matter of conscious choice, necessarily, just a matter of gravitational pull, the way integration always worked, a one-way street. The minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around. Only white culture could be neutral and objective. Only white culture could be nonracial, willing to adopt the occasional exotic into its ranks. Only white culture had individuals. And we, the half-breeds and the college-degreed, take a survey of the situation and think to ourselves, Why should we get lumped in with the losers if we don’t have to? We become only so grateful to lose ourselves in the crowd, America’s happy, faceless marketplace; and we’re never so outraged as when a cabbie drives past us or the woman in the elevator clutches her purse, not so much because we’re bothered by the fact that such indignities are what less fortunate coloreds have to put up with every single day of their lives-although that’s what we tell ourselves-but because we’re wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and speak impeccable English and yet have somehow been mistaken for an ordinary n***er.
Don’t you know who I am? I’m an individual!
So, based on the fact that Joyce refused to join herself to one organization, Obama concludes she avoided black people. He goes on to deride integration, painting “nonracial” culture as merely a white thing. This paragraph also makes the ignorant assumption that all cabs are driven by white racists, all women are fearful of black men, and all “coloreds” are less fortunate. Of course his derision of individuals and individualism has become a trademark of his campaign and presidency, most recently highlighted by his attempt to transform a confrontation between a cop and a belligerent uncooperative man into a national race war. Obama deals in collectivist mentalities not personal freedoms, liberties, or individuals. This is explained by the paragraph immediately succeeding the above, where he arrogantly claims to “understand” people like Joyce:
The truth was that I understood her, her and all the other black kids who felt the way she did. In their mannerisms, their speech, their mixed-up hearts, I kept recognizing pieces of myself. And that’s exactly what scared me. Their confusion made me question my own racial credentials all over again, Ray’s trump card still lurking in the back of my mind. I needed to put distance between them and myself, to convince myself that I wasn’t compromised-that I was indeed still awake. To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
He only understood her in relation to his socialistic mindset. He basically says that Marxism is part of an uncompromised “black” identity! Then, he slams people who identify as “individuals” instead of collectives as being “confused.” His radicalization is also demonstrated in his choice of friends. “Birds of a feather flock together.”According He chose Marxists and radicals as his friends, and he did it carefully. Here he succeeds in tying his ethnic identity (Black) to radical ideologies (Marxism and leftist activists). Therefore, by his definition, Joyce, or any other multi-racial or African who rejects his mixture of leftist radicalism to embrace individualism or a western mindset would be a “confused” individual “selling out” their ethnic identity.
Someone with a truly post-racial mentality would not attempt to use race as a bludgeon or wedge to force someone off of the beliefs they hold dear. Barack Obama is stuck in a racist marxist mindset that has no place in an America that has been making continued strides towards a standard of true equality as far as laws and government can create such a standard. He himself is proof that progress only goes as far as individuals are willing to take it. For it takes only one person to revive the specter of government sanctioned racism, one judge that puts race above justice. Yes, an individual can almost single handedly turn the ride of progress back, and then use the resulting discord to further his degenerate ends. SonyaSotomayor, Van Jones, Maria del Carmen, and other racists and Marxists are being selected for positions high in Obama‘s administration. Over two hundred years of progress in relations between Americans of diverse colors are being systematically dismantled by the man who was heralded as the culmination of racial unity and equality.
I decided to post and share my extra large high rez NoBama posters! Suitable for printing up to at least 11×17!
Get the message out, and let me know if you’ve posted these anywhere! (warning: will torture dial-up connections, middle class incomes, and bourgeois elements!
Many of you have probably seen or heard about Obama’s performance in Rick Warren’s debate. I would like to draw attention to this part of that. Did you know a similar exchange occurred in the Bible? The context may be different but it is the first thing I thought of after I read Obama’s beautiful dodging maneuver (reminiscent of his dodging of votes on important or controversial issues…)
(Matthew 21:25) The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
(Matthew 21:26) But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
(Matthew 21:27) And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Now let me give you the BSV (Barack Substandard Version)
Obama 1:1 And the mediator asked: The rights of a child, from whence to they begin? And Obama reasoned with himself, saying, If I say “sometime after birth” I will lose the moderates and conservatives?
1:2 But if I shall say “at conception” I fear my party, moveon.org, the clintons, NARAL and NOW.
1:3 And He answered and said, “It is above my paygrade to have an opinion on such things.”
And thus it was continued, not in the so-called “new politics,” but in the politics of the old, for behold the answer given a controversial topic was like unto nothing, and it was.
In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama makes this commentary regarding the release of a line of bathroom products by the Nation of Islam (Power brand) and advertised in it’s Newspaper, The Final Call:
The newspaper also carried…promotions for a line of toiletries–toothpaste and the like–that the Nation had launched under the brand name POWER, part of a strategy to encourage blacks to keep their money within their own community.
After a time, the ads for POWER products grew less prominent in The Final Call; it seems that many who enjoyed Minister Farrakhan’s speeches continued to brush their teeth with Crest. That the POWER campaign sputtered said something about the difficulty that faced any black business–the barriers to entry, the lack of finance, the leg up that your competitors possessed after having kept you out of the game for over three hundred years. (Page 201)
The problems an upstart company faces going against an established giant like Crest in its mainstay product would be the same for anyone! No upstart could instantly gain the brand loyalty, quality and economies of scale that an established firm has. Further “you” haven’t been kept out of the game for over 300 years. Anyone who has never been exposed to invention techniques, college, or who didn’t have parents who ran a business are just as economically impared as those who can trace their family line back 300+ years. Why? Because economic sense and entreprenuership are NOT genetic, they are learned!
Further, Obama neglects some important factors regarding the fizzle of the Nation of Islam(NOI)’s POWER line:
The parent company, NOI is widely considered racist and antisemitic
The target market is going to be very small
The brand loyalty of Crest is well established
They could never match the price as an upstart and make money
Their radicalism alienated many potential customers
As a side note, Obama noted that he “would occasionally pick up the (NOI’s) paper” p201, and yet it must have been quite frequently because he goes on to note the gradual diminishing of the ads for the POWER line.
On page 202, he goes on to lament that the “unifying furvor” garnered from Farrakhan’s speeches wasn’t able to carry over into the every day choices of blacks, and he blames this on “decisions forced by a market economy.”
If this is the “economic prowess” that Obama will bring to the white house, that race and the free market are the sum of the problem, then how on earth will he lead this country out of a recession? With the taxes and governmental spending explosions he promotes? Coupled with his radical mentality, I do believe he will take this country’s economy out of the recession…
I have recently began to read Obama’s book Dreams from my father and, though I am only a few pages into it, I feel some interesting observations can be made.
He has melded different characters into one (p xvii), changed the names of most people he knew, and some events are taken “out of precise chronology.” Such things are perfectly fine for historical fiction, but for someone writing an autobiographical book, one has to wonder how much the truth has been compromised by such actions. Of perhaps greater importance, is that any changes he has made were his choice, and will show us how he views such people and groups and beliefs.
Another unusual feature has been that, only 13 pages in, he has twice made reference or comparison to Communists and socialists. Neither reference was necessary, and is perhaps awkward.
The first reference Obama compares his state of hopelessness to that of the Communists:
“…well, I suspect that I sound incurably naive, wedded to lost hopes, like those Communists who peddle their newspapers on the fringes of college towns(xv).”
The “lost hopes” Obama is referring to seems to be a personal and national racial identity crises, and he feels it is naive to hope that it will be solved. Racial equality is a good thing to strive for, and is indeed true from a scientific and spiritual (Biblical) standpoint.
However, his comparison indicates that Communists have the same sort of hopelessness over their (as of yet) failure to bring about a socialist society. Obama could have picked any other down and out group of people to compare himself to, and yet he chose Communists to sympathize with.
Again, on page 12, he interjects a favorable reference to socialists where it was unnecessary, and perhaps somewhat awkward to do so. It also shows a relatively concealed belief that whites are always racist(a central tenant to Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology as taught at Trinity United Church of Christ), and his attempt to reconcile white grandparents from the age of racism admitting freely that their daughter married a black man.
Sure–but you let your daughter marry one? (Black man)
The fact that my grandparents had answered yes to this question, no matter how grudgingly, remains an enduring puzzle to me. There was nothing in their background to predict such a response, no New England transcendentalists or wild-eyed socialists in their family tree.
Again we have a good thing (interracial acceptance) married to socialism, the foundation of a system that takes away freedom and paycheck.
It is clear to me from this brief portion of Obama’s book that he considers socialism a good thing, and that he has sympathy for those Communists’ lost hopes, the hopes that generations of Americans have fought against for the preservation of the freedoms and values upon which this Union was founded.
Now the New Black Panthers are denying they have any connection to Obama other than skin color. This group also has the audacity to claim the tea party is racist!
Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego. SOURCE
See the original release here, at the New Black Panthers’ website.
The New Black Panther Party for Self Defense has officially endorsed Barack Obama as the “ONLY choice” for the militant racial separatist in their magazine. This group openly longs for the killing of “white folks.” You might think that it is because he’s the first seriously possible Black candidate for the US presidency. You can be assured that if this distinction were to go to someone like Condeliza Rice, Colin Powel, or Alan Keyes, that they would protest them with even more tenacity than they did Bush (you know, the Nazi). They would only come out and support a main stream candidate if that candidate was likely to advance in some way, their views on “whitey”.
After reading about the deletion of a supposed Black Panther Endorsement on Obama’s official website, I decided to check it out for myself. The endorsement was in fact real, as verified by The New Black Panther(TNBP):
In this same issue, here is the full page endorsement:
10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! “UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL!” BLACK POWER! History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man’s wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
Therefore, to the Red Man and Woman, to the Yellow and to the Brown, we say to you
“THE SAME RABID DOG THAT BIT YOU, BIT US TOO!” ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
This sentiment is shown nicely in this sample of a CD review from the April/May 2004 issue of TNBP:
