Monday, April 28, 2008

Obama's Undoing: 5 things that will end Senator Obama's Presidential bid

After watching Fox News Sunday’s interview with Presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama I realized that there are really five clear things that will bring down the Illinois Senator.

1. Connections with a radical Black Liberation preacher and church.

It is not merely that people disagree with the racial ranting and conspiratorial diatribes that come forth from the mouth of Rev. Jeremiah Wright that will hurt Se. Obama. It is Sen. Obama’s denial that in 20 years of attending Rev. Wright’s church he never heard anything controversial. Well that was the first answer. Then it was Sen. Obama heard things he didn’t necessarily agree with, but stayed in the church because of the good works the church was doing in the community. It doesn’t matter the good works an organization does in a community, if it is teaching racism and sedition it is not an organization any person should be a member of. Only those blinded by “hope” would see otherwise.

2. The company he keeps.

When you have one radical or shady friend people are willing to accept that, because we all have one or two people we wish we didn’t know. However, when you defend a known terrorist and associate and profit from dirty dealers the American people begin to question your judgment. Sen. Obama not only associates himself with a radical racist pastor, but is also closely connected to a 1960’s radical who is known, and unapologetically admitted to blowing up bombs at several Washington D.C. buildings. The connection between Sen. Obama and Prof. William Ayers is both neighborly and financial. Mr. Ayers held a find raiser for Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign where Sen. Obama was in attendance. When asked about his association with Prof. Ayers, Obama defiantly asks if he should “base his associations on actions individuals did 40 years ago?” My answer to that question is yes! Especially when it comes to someone who is guilty of sedition and still believes he was right in doing what he did.

3. Sen. Obama has a 98.9% liberal voting record (, the highest in the Senate.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) was given a 96% liberal voting record, meaning that 96% of the time he voted with the liberal cause. This hurt Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and it will not bode well for a man who claims he can “reach across the aisle, and unite the country”. It is hard to believe that conservatives will appreciate the first 100 days of an Obama presidency when such legislation as Universal Healthcare or the raising of taxes is passed and signed. These are some of the issues Mr. Obama has consistently voted for.

4. A vague presidential platform of “change”.

“What does Senator Obama seek to change?” is the question millions of Americans still need Sen. Obama to answer. In his stumps speech he talks about hope and change, but he never details how he intends to change Washington. Is he going to change his own style of politics, and fight against the special interest that he represents in order to reach across the aisle? Is he going to veto anything that comes from his party? Change is a very broad topic, and is a wonderfully popular topic among the American people, however, eventually they want to know how you plan on changing America, and usually they make you tell them before they will vote for you.

5. Not saying what he means the first time.

During the entire interview on Saturday, Sen. Obama repeatedly corrected Chris Wallace, who was directly quoting Mr. Obama, and told him “what he meant by that”. It is hard to get behind a candidate that when questioned on his statements, tries to spin his statement to mean something else. The American people deserve a president who means what he says the first time he says it. We do not deserve someone who changes the meaning of his words when they are no longer politically expedient. Mr. Obama’s desire to be all things to all people will in the end give him a falseness that the American people will reject. This item is what I believe will hurt him the most.

For the first time in American history, America has a legitimate African-American candidate. However, being charismatic and articulate is not enough to run the greatest country every created by man. In these hard times we need real leadership with real, clear vision. We don’t need empty promises of hope and change, but we need someone who on day one will begin to allow his actions speak for themselves. Senator Obama is very “presidential”, but I do not believe there is much “there, there”. Yet, only time will tell, and we will see who Mr. Obama really is, should he receive the Democratic nomination.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

An American Ideology: The Constitution

NOTE: This piece, as will be with every piece in this series, is a very brief glimpse into the overall history and politics that shape our American ideology.

In every social studies class and Government 101 class in college the Constitution is covered. Usually not in great detail, and sometimes with the teacher’s own personal biases mixed in. Yet, every American is instructed on the document that is the foundation for laws and government for their country. Surprisingly though, many Americans cannot accurately tell you which amendment contains the freedom of religion or where in the Constitution they can find the enumerated powers of the three branches of government. A people ignorant of the document that protects them from the overreach of government cannot prevent the stripping away of their freedoms, or realize that those freedoms were there to begin with. This is why I am starting with the Constitution. Not, only because it is a great document to use to develop the American Ideology, but also to give the readers a desire to read again the document that is so important to their freedom.

Since the founding fathers began working on a Constitution to today, the debate behind the interpretation of the second greatest document ever written (second only to the Bible) has continued. To state that the founding fathers were unanimous in their support for the Constitution would be inaccurate.

The men who fought the Revolution against the British and formed this great nation were divided during the ratification of the Constitution (September 1787 to July 1788), and split into political groups called Federalists and Anti-federalists. These were the beginnings of the dual party system we have today. The Federalist argued for the ratification of the Constitution which established a strong central government, but still allowed for the sovereignty of the States. The Anti-federalists argued against the ratification in support of a united confederacy of sovereign States. Ultimately the Federalists were able to persuade the American people, and the Constitution was officially ratified in 1788 and became the law of the land.

The fact we have a Constitution or its history of ratification has never been the hot topic of debate, but the interpretation of this document is where much of the division lies. There are many in this country that would say that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, which is to say that it “progresses” with the American people. There are also those who are labeled “constructionists” who believe that the Constitution is legal contract, and therefore is a stalwart document and its meaning can only be changed with amendments. In further study of the founding father’s opinions of the Constitution, they would say the Constitution is a legal contract between the governed and the government, and can only change with the people through the amendment process. Yet, as America progressed through centuries the “constructionist” belief dwindled more and more, yet with the rising of the modern conservative movement more people are beginning to understand the founding father’s opinion of the Constitution and are asking questions to the validity of the “living, breathing” or “progressive” position.

It is important to understand that both thought processes have a place into today’s political environment. The “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution led to the abolition of slavery (13th Amendment), the 14th , 15th and 19th Amendments which are very important to the progression of this country. Yet, the “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution has led to some rather harmful positions as well. For example: “Separation of Church and State” being inserted into the 1st Amendment as to mean Government to be separated from religion (which was never the intent of the founding fathers), Legalized Abortion (which would have turned the stomachs of anyone who was born before the turn of the 19th-20th century), and Flag Burning and Pornography protected under the freedom of speech. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a document that the founding fathers wrote that would support any of these positions, yet they have become accepted interpretations by many in “progressive” camp.

If you examine the previous goods that have come from the “progressive” camp you will see that many of them were achieved through “constructionist” methods (i.e. the amendment process). Yet, the arguments used to support these amendments originated from a “living, breathing” interpretation. I say this, because a strict “constructionist” interpretation would have maintained that African Americans should only amount to 3/5 a person.

A “progressive constructionist” view of the Constitution would best fit into an American ideology. It would allow for some interpretation of the constitution, but would require that any law that is proposed, that is contrary to the original intent of the constitution or the amendment in question, be subject to the Amendment process. This kind of position would be consistent with the evolution of this country, and would uphold the founding principles that make this country great.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

In the previous post I discussed what the “American Identity” is, and why we have lost it. After I wrote those words I began to think about what an American identity truly is. With much introspection I believe we cannot really pinpoint one clear American identity. Because of the diverse cultural landscapes that make up America, it is intellectually impossible to pinpoint one clear “identity”. That being said, I believe it is possible to locate and identify a genuine “American Ideology”.

Right now many of you are beginning to formulate your opinions of where I am going, and whether I would be right. Before you go any further let me first explain that the “American Ideology” I propose is not beholding to any political party, or any political ideology. It is merely a reflection of what can be gleaned from American history, the Founding Fathers, and what is being said of the issues that divide us today. I honestly believe that there is more that unites us, than divides us, and it is the effort of this exploration to highlight these areas.

This will be an interesting exploration and may take time between entries, but ultimately it should illuminate a central, American Ideology, and cast aside the trivial things that seek to tear a rip in our domestic fabric.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Long Days Time Entry

For lack of any reason, other than I have not written in a long time, I write this blog. Like many Americans I am about as numb as you can be to anything that is going on in this country. I am not excited about the upcoming election, because we are back to voting for the least of two evils.

I do not believe that John McCain will make a great president. Will he be a lowsy president? No, he will just pretty much exist in the office. Much like President Bush has over the last year. Reason for his ineffectiveness will be that he did not do enough to rally the American people behind the Republican party, and win back the House and Senate. Instead, what will occur is the deadlock we have now.

I believe that the President (no matter who he/she is or what party he/she is) if he/she has the best interest of the American people at heart, can achieve great things. However, he/she has to inspire the American people, and their representatives to achieve such goals. That being said, it will be a long time before that will happen. Why? Because the division that runs rampant in this country today.

Our division is not anyone's fault but our own. As a country we have traded our identity in for the false promise of diversity and fainess. We have sold ourselves short by believing that the government is here to take care of us if something goes wrong. We have lost our identity in our pursuit of being more European in our policies. Yet, there is hope. If we grab ahold of the real American identity, and reject these false identities that have been forced upon us all in the name of "fairness".

The American Identity is one of rugged individualism. There was a time in our not too distant past that we celebrated the rugged pioneer, or the rough and tumble cowboy. They were symbols of the American ideal. That every man and woman, with enough grit, could hack out a place for themselves in the harsh world. Men and Women in the prairies helped each other out, because they wanted to or needed to. Not because men sitting in a limestone building several thousand miles away said they had too. They did it because it was the "Christian" thing to do. Charity, justice and fairness were a way of life at one time in America, but somewhere we allowed the government to take it from us, and for what? The comfort of nice roads, or a bigger refund check at the end of tax season?

I believe if Americans would tap into the "spirit" of the pioneer once again we would see past the petty differences over policy (because they wouldn't matter anymore), and unite once again under the only banner that ever mattered; being American.