Obama Wins, America Loses
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad Barack Obama won, but not for the reasons you might suspect.
I didn’t want Obama to be president but his presidency will prove a lot of things. It will prove that he made campaign promises that he can’t keep. It will prove that the foreign policy differences of Obama and McCain are non-existent. It will prove that Obama has no respect for the Constitution. It will prove that the liberal agenda is a guaranteed failure. And it will prove to be the biggest disappointment the American people have ever experienced.
I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain. I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Who is Chuck Baldwin you ask? We’ll if you don’t know and you still voted anyway, you did not fulfill your duty to know all of the candidates. I really wanted Ron Paul to be president. He has true wisdom and he respects the Constitution. But now I’ve gone off on a tangent. This isn’t about who I wanted to be my president, it’s about who is.
Throughout his campaign Barack Obama made promises that would cost billions and trillions of tax payers money. We are currently in the midst of what could be the worst financial crisis in the history of the world (Maybe Barack can use his hope to stop it from materializing). We cannot possibly afford the increases in spending that he claimed he would support. Even CBS News recognizes this fact.
So many people voted for Barack Obama because they thought he was a peace candidate. They believed that he would pull the troops out of Iraq. They believed that he would reduce our presence of force around the world. Those people could not be any more wrong. Regardless of what he has said about opposing war in Iraq he will continue it. If you listen to most of his recent comments on the subject you will hear him criticize the strategy and not the war itself. He is also on record stating that he would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan to go after Al-Qaeda. This could be extrapolated to include violating the sovereignty of any country to go after any enemy. How is this consistent with a peace candidates philosophy?
Image by stevegarfield via Flickr
Like George W Bush preceding him, Barack Obama will have no respect for the Constitution. Recently released audio of Obama has him stating that the Constitution does not go far enough in enumerating the powers that government has over you. I am certain that he will not hesitate to interpret the Constitution in any manner to fit his needs. Why can’t our leaders ammend the Constitution if they don’t like it? Why must they consistenly violate it?
With the Congress and the presidency both going to liberal democrats that party will not have any outs. Any legislation that they pass or fail to pass will be solely their doing. I know that they will be faced with enormous challenges in the coming term but I also know that, with history as an example, their policies will be failures.
So, with all of these issues stacked against Obama, I believe his presidency will be a total failure. He will destroy private enterprise in favor of public, he will destroy the constitution, and he will destroy the hopes and dreams of all of his supporters. I don’t want to be right, but I am afraid that I will be.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9eb1689e-510e-4789-870a-58bdb1507c0a)
(10 rating, 2 votes)
Loading ...
I feel your pain Ethan. I really liked Ron Paul and I voted for him in the primaries. I, too voted Chuck Baldwin in the election and it makes me sad how many uneducated voters there are. Even the good candidates that ran in the primaries as Democrats got very little play by the media. I suppose this is the wake up call the country needs to finally realize the con of the two-party system, but it's unfortunate that race-relations will only get worse under Obama. If you check out the recent libertyconspiracy podcasts on iTunes you'll hear his new term “racialism” - which is essentially blaming all opposition of being racist. No rational argument will be allowed this presidency - it's agree or be labeled a racist.
I agree that Obama wasn't a peace candidate, yet many people on my campus had peace symbols on Obama stickers and were totally conned by that too. What a shame.
Peace, eh?
Exactly Ethan, he doesn't necessarily disagree with the war itself inasmuch as its strategy (i.e. he thinks we need more troops in Afghanistan.) I guess adding troops to Afghanistan is peaceful, as long as you engage in “diplomatic talks” at the same time. And yes, those of you who will comment on this, I spent a great deal of time researching the platforms of all candidates, so don't twist the story.
The person I would want to be president is someone who could stand up and say that we have been lied to; that person would make moves on punishment for Bush and Co.
For a laugh, type in “Obama peace” into a Flickr.com search…
You get stuff like…http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennifer_tracy/3004589662/
He may have done drugs earlier in life, but Obama is certainly no hippie, lol.
Haha - diplomatic relations with troops. That's a good one Alicia!
Restricting business tax breaks is exactly the wrong policy if your stated goal is to promote economic growth. The whole idea of economic stimulus is to keep people working, right? But the thing the politicians, and Obama included, do not want to admit, is that it is business that keeps people employed and not politicians. If we hope to achieve any success at all from economic stimulus packages the one thing that could and should be done is to limit the burdens placed on businesses by government policies and taxes. It is the only way to encourage businesses to grow and keep people employed while keeping people free. Of course, this is under the presumption that economic growth is something to be desired for it's own sake, an idea that I do not agree with. Economic growth is only a good thing when it is a direct effect of the growth of real wealth, otherwise inflation is to be expected, but I will gladly side with anyone that wants to limit government interference into private business and private life rather than to increase it. What we need to do is restrict business taxes not business tax breaks.
Restricting business tax breaks is exactly the wrong policy if your stated goal is to promote economic growth. The whole idea of economic stimulus is to keep people working, right? But the thing the politicians, and Obama included, do not want to admit, is that it is business that keeps people employed and not politicians. If we hope to achieve any success at all from economic stimulus packages the one thing that could and should be done is to limit the burdens placed on businesses by government policies and taxes. It is the only way to encourage businesses to grow and keep people employed while keeping people free. Of course, this is under the presumption that economic growth is something to be desired for it's own sake, an idea that I do not agree with. Economic growth is only a good thing when it is a direct effect of the growth of real wealth, otherwise inflation is to be expected, but I will gladly side with anyone that wants to limit government interference into private business and private life rather than to increase it. What we need to do is restrict business taxes not business tax breaks.
Leave your response!
This week last year...
Calendar
Interesting Stats
Most Commented
Latest Comments