What does an Obama Presidency mean for America?

16 Mar

This question has been thrown around the blogosphere many-a-time and has been on the minds of those Americans who actually care enough about this country to educate themselves on the issues and not just blindly vote for the candidate telling the sweetest lies.

Barack Obama is selling change for a price. But he’s not telling us the price. Indeed, he has risen too high too fast and eventually his wings will melt like Icarus of old.

Mr. Obama has laid out his road map in The Blueprint for Change – Barack Obama’s Plan for America. As I read through it I often found myself saying, “Hey, that sounds pretty good.” But as I continued to read I found a common theme – a lot of talk, with no method or explanation of how it will be done. Sure, there are a couple of times that he attempts to rely on his record for support. But how much of a record does he truly have? The honest answer – not much.

An over arching theme that I found is the idea of an enlarged, dominating Federal Government. True, George W. Bush has led the largest expansion of the Federal Government since FDR, but if Obama is talking about change, wouldn’t he want to shrink the Fed? Of course not, because it’s not the Democratic Party way.

Not only are the Democrats in favor of an enlarged Federal Government (they should be thanking W) but they are also in favor of enlarged Federal Government control. I find this interesting because it was the Southern Democrats who seceded from the Union to preserve States Rights.

As a State’s Rightest I oppose Barack Obama and the Democratic Party entirely because they seek to take power solely to themselves and remove it from the hands of the people. Most dictators do.

This country is a great Union of States. These States are guaranteed rights, under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th Ammendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Barack Obama’s plan is to streamline and centralize all power at the Federal level, making State Governors nothing more than figureheads, and infringing on the rights of the citizens of each State by not allowing them to make their own policy.

The best cure for what is ailing America is to allow States to govern themselves, not by centralizing power in the Fed. As States are allowed to govern themselves, and to set their own policy, certain States will emerge as leaders.

Governor Schwarzenegger wanted to bring ecological reform to his State but the Fed shut him down. There was nothing in the proposed legislation specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution but he was stopped none-the-less. Why? Because the Fed believes that it is the only policy maker in this country and that it must keep the States under its thumb. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party will continue this oppressive rule, and even expand it.

He currently represents the State of Illinois. While an Illinois State Senator he took the following stance on gun control

As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.[96] He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[97] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.[98] Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52–1.[99] Illinois allows lawmakers to abstain from issues by voting present instead of yes or no.

Obama was also a board member[100] of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[101] While in the US Senate, Obama has voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability.[102] Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.[103]

During a February 15, 2008 press conference, Obama stated, “I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation.”[104] He voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month in the landmark case D.C. v. Heller.[104]

If he is this willing, as a State Senator, to trample on the Constitutional Rights granted to citizens in the U.S. Constitution, can anyone honestly believe that he will be reigned in if elected President?

But what would a Barack Obama presidency really mean for America. In a word, Change. Change meaning that the popular vote would truly be the “popular” vote. Not unlike the tens of thousands of High School Student Body Presidents – they don’t actually do anything to get elected and they certainly don’t do anything while in office to help the student body, but they get elected because they are the most popular student among the candidates running.

Change mean
ing that America will continue to follow a path of electing a President who draws power to himself under the banner of “Protecting the People.”

Change meaning that there is a liberal in the White House who will continue to lessen the personal accountability and personal independence of each citizen by saying “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” The exact words which the great Ronald Reagan said were “[t]he nine most terrifying words in the English language….”


Posted by on March 16, 2008 in Politics, Rants


4 responses to “What does an Obama Presidency mean for America?

  1. Cole

    March 16, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    While I agree this country is in need of a sizeable change, I too fear the results an Obama Presidency could have upon the face of America’s once iconic Republic. In circumscribing to the notion of “change”, Obama has at least in my opinion, sufficiently downgraded the overall potential for true and lasting legitimacy to form. In applying that he and his campaign are somehow solely responsible for establishing the theme of “change” or “hope” within the broader frame of political candor, he has failed to establish even rhetorical change….let alone a glimpse of factual adjustment, measured by esteemed elements of real world antics. This, as you accurately pointed out, is even more frightening when once begins to consider his futuristic desire for Federal enhancement. Although this view of Federal enlargement has become status quo for those practicing the skilled art of [d]emocratic deception, Obama, and those practicing its style, are looking to find new and unimproved ways of superseding its investment to America. Albeit at the expense of those, who’s investment capital is still placed squarely in the banks of “life (independence), liberty, (self-restraint and accountability) and the pursuit of happiness (success achieved through personal dedication)”. Thus an Obama Presidency fails to even deliver on a vernacular level, not to mention its failed levels of outlandish optimism, masked under the umbrella of fabricated sanctimony

  2. James

    March 17, 2008 at 7:38 am

    States’ rights is interesting but not a panacea for all the problems we face. Remember there are many people who yearn to hear and live by those famous words of President Reagan in the “so-called” blue and red states and those same people favor what you and Cole deride. I wonder about all the presidential candidates. It seems no one in the general public or the two major parties themselves knows who and what they truly represent. Perhaps it is time for a competitive third political party. Thanks for your insights.

  3. Bobby G.

    March 17, 2008 at 8:38 am

    While not a huge fan of any liberal, I will take exception as to what the gun ban in D.C. has done to lessen gun violence…not ONE darn thing.Yet gun control DOES work…ask Hitler…or Amin…or Castro…or Mao Tse Tung…or Kim Jong il…or Stalin.Hmm, seems to be a pattern here, eh?States do need to wrest control from the Feds in certain areas, but that same control need not be fostered upon the people of the 50 states either.A balance has to be determined…and then maintained.Plato once said that: “Democracy is one step above Anarchy”.And we needn’t go down that slope…at ANY level of geovernment.B.G.

  4. Reese

    March 17, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    I’m almost certain that a strong Third Party will emerge, eventually, and hopefully not too late. We’ll have to see what true Conservative Repubulicans do after this election. Will we lose faith in McCain and those like him and form a new party, or will we be able to regain what we have lost? The answer remains to be seen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: