You are hereWhy I Hope Obama Wins
Why I Hope Obama Wins
by Nathan Dubois
This election year is turning into the most complicated and gut wrenching year I have ever seen for many socially conservative Christians. As far as I can tell, the three remaining candidates that have any shot at winning are all social liberals, making a vote by conservatives who have the guts to follow their conscience, a vote of protest. More than likely through voting third party. This should spell a loss for the Republicans. This year more than any has left me hoping that is exactly the case. The death of social conservative ideals within the Republican party has finally hit it's climax. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected that hard line stance on abortion, homosexual rights, and the illegal immigration issue. So if this is the year they lose power completely, so be it.This election year is turning into the most complicated and gut wrenching year I have ever seen for many socially conservative Christians. As far as I can tell, the three remaining candidates that have any shot at winning are all social liberals, making a vote by conservatives who have the guts to follow their conscience, a vote of protest. More than likely through voting third party. This should spell a loss for the Republicans. This year more than any has left me hoping that is exactly the case. The death of social conservative ideals within the Republican party has finally hit it's climax. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected that hard line stance on abortion, homosexual rights, and the illegal immigration issue. So if this is the year they lose power completely, so be it.
Now is the time to explain my statement above. My conscience may not allow me to vote for any of the three strong candidates, but my heart hopes that of those three that even have a shot, that we find Barack Obama in the White House next January. I would have a hard time voting for him because he does not view abortion as murder in the strictest sense, and therefore sides with the "rights" of the mother to murder her child. He also views the homosexual agenda akin to the plight of black America, as a discrimination issue that is unfairly restricting the rights of gays in society. He unfortunately fails to see that blacks are born that way, and therefore holding them in a lower status in society is evil and ignorant, but that homosexuals are choosing to behave socially deviant and dangerously to society, and therefore holding them out of the same class and benefit status of married men and women is not only legitimate, but necessary. We need to respect the differences of color and treat people equally, but we are not bound to support and reward deviant social behavior.
The other side of this dilemma is this. We who are social conservatives and patriots tend to love our forefath3ers who created this nation. Men like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, etc. These men were imperfect but I guarantee you many Christians would vote for them in an instant. This being said, many of those men were slave owners. Many Christians were involved in the process of politics during our nations founding and slavery continued to exist. Slavery was actually practiced by some of these men today's Christians heroize. We make exceptions for them because we have the high end sight to acknowledge the difficulties of the day and the complications of their time. Knowing not all slave owners were evil men, we see the culture was under the oppression of that disease.
Today's disease is abortion. We can hold to the only major party that votes pro-life using our one "litmus test" issue, yet we are not accurately viewing today what we can so clearly see in our founders 200+ years ago. The climate will not allow abortion abolition. Period. We have had, over the last 28 years, 20 years of Republican, pro-life Presidents. We have not made a dent on the pro-life issue. This sin against humanity and God will not be solved by votes and one man in the bully pulpit of the Presidency. To believe this is becoming another delusional ideal of the modern church. God demands justice for these types of sins. We won't escape it so easily as getting a new President who solves the problem with one appointed judge. Besides, weren't the two appointments by Bush supposed to already take over the Supreme Court in a 5-4 conservative majority? Where is the ban on partial birth abortion?
No, Christians. The Republicans are not the answer to abortions evil. God's impending justice is (anyone remember the civil war and reconstruction from history class?) We will not get out of this so easily. That being said, what the Republicans HAVE done is destroy our nation in many different ways through corporate greed, neo-conservative/Zionist ideology, and one heck of a superiority complex.
That said, here is why I want Barack Obama to win:
My #1 Issue is the Iraq War
Defending this war is defenseless. The Right cannot excuse the invasion anymore. Now the defense of the war is in an effort to make sure we at least “win." Now that we have been duped, and we are between a rock and a hard place, they play on our pride to not "let the terrorist win" or to "support our troops." It has become a political ploy to let those who got us into this mess continue gaining power and money. They have been defenseless for some time and the only thing they can do to keep the people allowing this war to continue is to appeal to a false sense of patriotism and scare them into believing that pulling out of Iraq would somehow make us more vulnerable.
Here are the major holes in their argument.
First: There have only been two major attacks on the United States by our enemies in 50 years. Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. Some minor threats by terrorists have occurred around the world and even here, but they were relatively harmless. We have had more casualties by domestic terrorists in our own land than by Islamic extremists. Jones' poison, Waco's massacre, and Oklahoma City are some examples. Not to mention the Uni-Bomber. So the fact that there has been no attacks by Islamic terrorists in the 6.5 years since 9/11 is an irrelevant point. We did not average attacks every 6.5 years or less by Islamic terrorists even before the Iraq war.
Second: Using the flawed logic I exposed above, they claim we are keeping the terrorists occupied in Iraq so that they will not come here. Again, there is no proof they are keeping them from coming here. 6.5 years is not enough time to make that call. The fact is, the terrorists we are fighting there are not made from a limited supply of Muslims that are slowly running out as we kill them in Iraq. Instead, they are not only being grown, trained and brainwashed to kill us here, but now we have them being grown, trained and brainwashed to kill some of the over 100,000 Americans in the Middle East. We have CREATED more terrorists by going over there and fighting in Iraq unjustifiably. Not diminished them. They train more for two fronts, not less for one front.
Third: I agree with Pat Buchanan. A war against terrorism without a face cannot be won by soldiers. They always end up winning as history shows (in his book "Where the Right Went Wrong.") Sooner or later we will resign to the fact that Iraq will remain a war zone of some type forever, as the Middle East has for over 2000 years, or we will realize that pulling the troops out is the only way to keep more troops from dying. The fact is 4000 troops have already died in vain. In vain means "for no good reason." If it was not to prevent Sadaam from using weapons of mass destruction, if it is not to keep our country safer or keep the terrorists occupied, which I showed is faulty logic, then pulling out now makes only 4000 die in vain, rather than the 5, 6, and 7000 that may die in vain before those in Washington get the point.
My limit is 4000. That is why Barack Obama is the right man for this issue.
My #2 Issue is the "Patriot Act" ("Movement Toward Fascism" Act)
Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and countless other founding fathers would role over in their graves and mourn for the nation that has lost it's way if they new about this. This act has led to an assault on our rights in many other ways as in the cell phone records issue and Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
Ben Franklin "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. "
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
Thomas Paine "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Let's think about an example of what happened in 9/11. Of all the people that died, and of all the places that were attacked, which plane was unsuccessful and why? Who was responsible for protecting citizens and the government? Was it our all knowing President and his military staff? Was it the pedestal standing police force? No, it was the citizen, empowered by free flowing media and free market telephones provided by big business looking to turn profits. They acted to a situation, not reacted. They had the power and ability. Not Uncle Sam. Citizens stepped up and took Thomas Jefferson’s words to new heights.
Sorry folks, the way to protect people in America is not to throw away the First Amendment. It is not to hold "suspected" terrorists without bail, indefinitely, to be tortured. It is not forcing public companies into giving up private phone records with immunity. It is not more safe to have Big Brother monitor our every move.
First, it is impossible for them to do so. The tax dollars, the personnel needed, the equipment needed. The secrecy and ability to become tyrannical and pervert justice without the checks and balances of the media will destroy this nation. It has already weakened this nation. If we can throw out the First Amendment without 2/3 majority vote in Congress and a ruling by the Supreme Court, we have already become tyrannical.
The fact is the Act was passed while the First Amendment still stands. In the name of fear we have given up freedom to Big Brother. Someone who has proved in able to protect themselves without the help of the media and free citizen. Who is right. George W. Bush or Thomas Jefferson.
If Barack Obama can get this repealed, he is the winner on my #2 issue as well.
My #3 issue is Abortion
I have already addressed this issuer above, but I have not actually ripped the Republicans like I should have. Yet, inability to do anything in 20 out of 28 years, a Republican majority for two years, and more conservative Supreme Court has done nothing to help the anti-abortion, pro-life cause.
Because the Republicans want the sole hold on this issue. They will not give up the conservative vote so easily. If there is ANY chance that the Democrats would have actually support a ban on partial birth abortion, and therefore save some face in the circles of the conservatives, then the Republicans will find a way top make their own attempts fail.
How? Listen to Obama on this issue from a Q&A session he had in Christianity Today.
"Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies. Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk."
Now as I said before, it is clear Obama does not hold to the strict sense of the issue that abortion is murder, but with the compromise he is willing to make to outlaw late term abortion as long as there is a health of the mother clause, and him being the most liberal of the candidates, why has nothing passed? Millions could be saved!!
I will tell you why again. It is as I said above. Any compromise, even to save millions of babies, will not be made by the Republicans. They will hold to the most radical law only, rather than give ground. Instead of starting at the beginning and saving millions by allowing a "health of the mother" clause, they would rather save no one.
The pro-lifer elite will say that this is because no late-term issues ever arise which force a mother and doctor to actually choose. GREAT! Then allow the clause! Because the situation will barely, if ever, arise!
So the pro-lifers respond, "But we are allowing a loop hole where this can continue!" To which I say that it is better to start small, attack the fabric of the heart of the individual in the nation little by little. If lawmakers start with a partial ban, the people will start to view some abortion as a crime. This may, in the long term, help resurrect the "when life begins" debate. With some abortions outlawed, and millions saved, we at least starting somewhere.
So, due to the ability to compromise and begin small, set aside party lines and save some, Barack beats even the most staunch pro-life politicians who refused to include a clause out of the need to maintain their base and continue partisan politics. So more babies are dying, because of the Right's politics trumping their beliefs.
My #4 and #5 issue is The Economy and Health Care
This goes hand in hand with the war. We are in a horrible bind because of the military industrial complex, banking greed, war mongering neo-cons, and self-righteous politicians. Again, the Republicans get this wrong.
I ask you one question, is it better to spend a trillion dollars on a war that kills American troops and Middle Eastern people or to spend that same money on affordable college tuition, health care for minors, better educational facilities, etc. The same self-righteous people who think and believe it is NEVER the governments job to help the poor out of a jam, or assist parents in providing medical care for their families, are the same people that have no problem keeping porous borders open, spend a trillion dollars on killing, and earn billions of profit in oil company revenue while we pay four to five a gallon as projected in the next year or so.
Oh yea, and this is the pro-life party.
Those same politicians blame the housing crisis on individuals. It is the individuals fault they do not read every fine print of a mortgage document that is over 60 pages long. it is the average Joe's fault that they believed the lenders that the market will only keep getting better, so if you can project five years ahead of time and believe you can afford a 30 year fixed then, go ahead, no, we encourage you to take a negative amortized loan. With the equity rise and the rates low, you will be able to refinance or sell at a profit no problem. It has been proven, and personal experience that I have had shows that lenders and brokers fudge income numbers (ie. commit fraud), created negative amortized loans soley for the purpose of individuals getting caught and being forced to sell in a market that was going up so that the banks could do the cycle over again, etc. The lenders and banks created an impossible situation, gambled on the market so that in the short term they could make mega profits, and intentionally deceived the average, non lawyer, high school graduate into a purchase they could never afford.
I do not only blame the banks, I blame the real estate agents, the appraisers who intentionally inflated the market, and the individual. yes, the individual. It is still ultimately the responsibility of the person to make the responsible choice, not the market gambling one. However, the powers that be are the ones with the money, legal experience, economical outlook, and oil salesmen tactics.
The Republicans would rather make billions in profit than lower oil costs and mandate alternative fuel production and blame the average citizen over the "slick oil salesmen." Funny, I thought there were consumer protection laws on purpose. Are we back in the 1800's? Barack Obama, who has less pork barrel and large corporation contributions than Hillary wins this issue. he can be trusted to remain separate from the influence of the corporations than any of the other. McCain would watch the nation drown from a self-righteous perch, while spending billions on the killing machine instead. Barack wants to lower State college tuition and give tax breaks to students. He wants to insure every minor, but leave the adults to chose for themselves. Last but not least, he wants to invest in alternative fuels and make us energy independent.
Obama wins my #4 and #5 issue.
So, I am in a dilemma. I see myself getting closer to that line daily. What will I do? It is tempting to break my longstanding third party or rare Republican voting record so that I can help ensure the war ends, the poor in this country are worth more than killing others, and move past partisan politics.
You tell me?