An Obama Administration

  Anyone who has spent time reading this blog knows I am no fan of Senator McCain. I disagree with him on quite a few issues, ranging from immigration to campaign finance reform. I would prefer that he be a little more small government oriented, as I think he has a tendency to lean towards a larger government than I would like. It isn't that he is without his benefits (pork spending, lowering taxes, etc), it is just that I would prefer someone who is a little more conservative. That said, I also haven't hid that I think a moderately conservative McCain Administration would be preferable to a Liberal Obama Administration. Here are my reservations about Senator Obama winning on Tuesday.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDERS

  I don't think Senator Obama has a firm grasp on what the Constitution was written for, or what the Founders intent was.  He continues to call for a larger government, when our Founders were extremely wary of a strong Federal government.  Listen to what he says about the redistribution of wealth and the Constitution: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.....It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."  He went on to say that the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as "a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."  What Obama said was we need to "break free" from the constraints placed on the powers of the Federal Government by the Constitution.  Essentially, that the Founders were wrong, the Constitution is wrong, and needs to be fixed.  Like I have said before, if you agree with him then fine, agree with him.  But know that when you vote for him, you're voting for someone who thinks the Constitution is flawed in limiting the power of the Federal Government, and should have mandated redistribution of wealth.  In an earlier blog I wrote about Senator Obama's belief that Health Care is a right, and what that says in regards to his theory on government.  This further confirms what I said, in that when he says that the Constitution failed the mention "what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf" he is essentially saying that the function of the federal government is to provide us with tangible things, like wealth.  To do that, it has to be very powerful, because tangible things don't exist in a vacuum, they have to be created.  

  The Founders wrote the Constitution to ensure the government doesn't take away our rights that already exist without the governments intervention (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  Obama thinks the Constitution should actively create tangible rights for us: redistribution of wealth, health care, etc.  I think Senator Obama would be in direct conflict with Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, and even Andrew Jackson.  I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the function of our Constitution, and I believe that is further evidenced by other issues I have with his policies.

CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES

  Senator Obama has called for the creation of what he calls a Civilian National Security Force, "just as strong, just as powerful, just as well funded" as the military. I don't think even the Senator has hashed out this policy in full, but there are a series of serious issues here. One, the Constitution hasn't given the authority to create such a force. To create one would mean having to deal with a slew of serious problems, like who is in command of the force? When the Constitution allows for State militias, why do we need yet another Civilian National Security Force? To be honest, and I'm not trying to be gratuitous about this, the Civilian National Security Force reminds me a lot about the Hitler Youth (in design/function, not the group's ideology). A private security force, controlled by the executive branch? In the wrong hands, it is extremely dangerous.  I'm not on board with that.  Our Constitution was very specific in making sure the military is NOT part of the executive branch, to avoid problems that would no doubt rise from one branch controlling that much power.  In fact, our military was set up to be exactly what Obama wants, a civilian force, not controllable by the executive.  That is why the President's cabinet has no direct control of the military.

JUDGES

  Senator Obama has declared that when it comes to nominating a judge, he would nominate someone "who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom.  The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."   I'm all for empathy for those less fortunate, but that particular characteristic is misplaced in the Judicial Branch. I realize the Senator is probably trying to create a more human judicial system, but in doing so he is changing the function of what the courts were set up to do. The Judicial Branch was created to interpret new laws constitutionality and make sure the laws are enforced. They aren't there to be empathetic towards those less fortunate. Once you start electing judges who interpret the law not based on precedence or the letter of the law but instead based on what they think the law should state, you create judges that legislate from the bench. We have a branch of the government designed to be our representatives and have empathy for those less fortunate, and that branch the legislative branch. Our system of government is set up to function that way as a check and balance, and I would be concerned with a leader who has stated that he wants to redefine the way our system of government functions.  That is a massive change in the Constitutional definition of the judicial branch.

TAXES

Forgetting for a moment the vacillating definition of wealth that the Obama campaign is struggling to concretely define, the very policy of redistribution of wealth is a bad idea. Again, our system of government isn't set up for that. The $1,000 tax rebate that Senator Obama is offering is NOT a tax rebate in the traditional sense. It is NOT money that people paid in taxes that the government doesn't need, and is returning to them. Senator Obama is proposing to get the money directly from a tax on Oil Company profits, and then re-distribute it to everyone else. I realize that Oil Companies are currently making quite a bit of money (though, as a % of revenue it is less than the profits of Microsoft and Google), but as soon as we let our politicians convince us it is ok to tax those more fortunate than ourselves we are traveling down a slippery slope. Who is to say exactly where Senator Obama will stop defining people as "wealthy"? If we give our politicians the authority to make that distinction, they won't stop at just those making $14 Billion profits. Eventually they will get to taxing you as well. More than that, this exhibits a fundamental difference between the candidate's view on the function of government.  Senator McCain wants the government out of our lives to protect our rights.  He believes our rights exist only when the government is least involved.  Senator Obama wants the government to create rights for us, to be actively involved in our lives.  

  Additionally, think about what their individual policies are really saying.  Senator Obama is essentially saying that your cut of the pie is too small, and to make sure "your cut of the pie is bigger", he will take from those who have larger pieces and give it to those who have smaller. Senator McCain wants those who have smaller pieces of the pie to get bigger pieces as well, but he doesn't want to accomplish that by taking from others. McCain's theory is, why not enrich everyone?  McCain would say, why not make the entire pie bigger. Expand the economy, so we all benefit and make more money. That exhibits a very fundamental and important difference in how these men approach the government and how to create wealth, and I am not comfortable with Senator Obama's interpretation of things.  To him, he'd rather take from those who have more than expand the economy as a whole.  Not only will his plan shrink the economy in the long run, but it doesn't even benefit those he claims.  

  Think of it like this.  If you make $60,000/year, you are taxed at about 10%.  So you paid $6,000 in taxes.  Say Obama gives you a $2,000 tax break. so now you effectively made $62,000.  In reality, that change benefited you very little.  In addition, under his plan your boss' taxes were raised and he is now paying 45% on his income taxes, is required to pay for your health care or is fined, and pays 33% more on his capital gains.  After all that, as his employee would you expect to get a raise any time soon?  But what if you took the conservative approach, and tried to make sure you were able to get a better education, a better job, and thus more money?  Or take the conservative plan to tax your employer less, and not require them to cover your health care costs (it might be nice that you have employer paid health care, but effectively that is money they aren't paying you directly, and you didn't even get to chose your health plan!).  Under which plan would you expect to flourish?

ABORTION

  Abortion is largely an emotional reaction to a very real issue.  It is the answer, for some, to all kinds of legitimate questions: what if I get raped?  What if I get pregnant as a teenager?  What if I get pregnant and my boyfriend leaves me?  Those are legitimate concerns.  I don't really want to get into the issue of abortion right now because my concern with Obama isn't just whether he is Pro-Choice or not, it is how Pro-Choice he is.  First, people need to understand that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will NOT be made illegal.  What would happen is abortion law would revert back to the states, where the Constitution wanted it.  Roe v. Wade is bad interpretation of Constitutional law and the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution to the Federal and State governments.  Roe gives the Federal Government powers that it should not have, as the Constitution states that all issues not addressed in the Constitution are to be considered State jurisdiction.  The real issue is that Obama goes further than wanting to hold up the Roe v. Wade decision.  In a speech to Planned Parenthood the Senator promised that his first task in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice act, which further solidifies abortion as a Federal issue by removing any state restrictions on abortion.  It would attempt to make abortion legal up until the moment of birth, a procedure called partial birth abortions.  Here is the definition of partial birth abortions: A partial-birth abortion is performed in the second or third trimester and entails inducing a breech delivery with forcepts, delivering the legs, arms, and torso only, puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or trochar, inserting a suction catheter into the skull, sucking out the contents of the skull so as to collapse it and completing the delivery by removing the collapsed skull."  Ron Fitzsimmons, former Exec. Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has stated that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus."  According to previous statements by Mr. Fitzsimmons and estimates provided by others, there are between 2,000-5,000 of these procedures performed each year in the United States.  In 2007, the U.S. Supreme court upheld an Act signed by President Bush in 2003 that prohibited this type of abortion, but the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act would be in direct opposition to that law, and a legal situation would ensue.  My point isn't whether or not Partial Birth Abortions will continue to be illegal, but rather to illustrate the danger of a policy making the issue solely the domain of the federal government.  

  In addition to partial-birth abortion, the Freedom of Choice Act would remove state rights in regards to requiring  parental notification, age restrictions, etc.  Essentially, it creates federal domain where there should only be state domain.  As someone who believes in the Founder's intent to keep the Federal government limited in scope, I take issue with Senator Obama's intent on this issue.

  Senator Obama also supports EDR, Embryonic Destruction Research.  EDR provides for the fertilization and destruction of human embryos for genetic research.  The goal of that research would be to create a database of embryos that would represent every genetic variation, and every disease.  They would want all variations of embryos to represent all variations found in human beings, so their research could be specific as possible.  This would necessitate the fertilization and experimentation on tens of millions of embryos, literally the harvesting of human life.  Senator Obama supports this type of research, as indicated by his opposition to President Bush's policies restricting it, voting against legislation that bans human cloning while in the Illinois state senate, and his c0-sponsoring of the Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005, which ironically enough protects human cloning when it comes to genetic research and then requires the destruction of all embryos created for that research.  Senator Obama also voted against a bill in the United States Senate that provided funding for stem cell research other than embryonic.  Research that did not require the creation or destruction of any embryos.  The office of the President, through the National Institutes of Health, is in charge of allocating all Federal money for genetic research.  As such, it would give me great comfort to know that the person in charge is not in favor of the creation, experimentation on, and then destruction of human embryos.

ENERGY

  Recently it has come to light that Senator is willing to place a cap-and-trade system on the Coal Industry that would not just encourage clean and renewable alternatives, but would in fact run them out of business.  Here is a direct quote from the Senator: "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum."  Currently, coal power plants generate 54% of our electricity.  I realize that in the future Senator Obama wants to move to more renewable energy which is a sound, responsible policy.  However, placing large charges on coal plants today, before the infrastructure is in place for renewables, would create crippling prices for today's energy.  Since Obama has recently indicated he is for coal power (but his above quote would indicate he actually is not), I would be curious if Obama holds the same thoughts on Nuclear power.  Seeing as he publicly says he is for coal power but is obviously for taxing it out of business, I would like to know if he holds the same view for nuclear power.  

  I do not believe it is sound policy to move towards renewable energy while at the same time cripple your current energy producing sector.  Not even to mention the tens of thousands of Americans who work in the coal industry.  To hear a presidential candidate speak candidly about destroying a section of the American economy, regardless of his good intentions, is worrisome.  It is bad policy to try and force change like that.  It will result serious financial consequences, and it will hit the poor the hardest. 

FOREIGN POLICY

  Even most Obama supporters I talk with are concerned with his lack of experience on this issue.  For someone who wants to become Commander and Chief and will be running two wars for our country, it is amazing to me that the first time he visited Iraq was only a few months ago.  I would prefer he have a little more first hand knowledge of the issue.  His lack of experience in foreign policy leads me to my next point.

WORLD VIEW

  This is what I placed at the top of my list for qualifications of a president, and it is something of which we know very little about Obama, as he is known principally through his books and his speeches.  What we do know about his friends, associates, and religious affiliations aren't comforting to say the least.  The fact that his spiritual mentor is a man who speaks of the "US of KKK -A" and "God Damn America", and September 11th as the US's "Chickens coming home to roost" is troubling.  I have personally never heard a pastor say that, and if he/she did I would have left the church immediately, not stayed for 20 years.  The fact that Wright was his pastor for 20 years, baptized his children, married him, and served as his "spiritual mentor" is a little foreign to me.

  On the foreign policy side of things, his response to Russia's invasion of Georgia was to call for both sides to stop their aggression and for the U.N. Security Council to get involved.  Either he doesn't know that Russia holds a veto on the Security Council, or he knows that calling for their involvement will get nothing accomplished.  Neither option is, to me, reassuring.  He either doesn't know enough about the situation to comment on it wisely, or doesn't want to hold Russian aggression responsible, and seeing as that aggression was against a US ally I find that distressing.  

  

HIS SUPPORTERS

  I admit this is a bit satirical, but there is a certain amount of reassurance I get from knowing that I disagree with a great many of the people who have publicly supported Obama. Who wouldn't find it reassuring to know they're on the opposite side of issues from people like Madonna, Lindsey Lohan, Hamas, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, Perez Hilton (yes, I spelled that correctly), Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Anne Hathaway, Europe, etc?  When a cause is that popular, it is normally on the wrong side of things.  Civil Rights, Civil War, Women's Rights, Abolition of Slavery, even our own Revolution, were not supported by a majority of people, especially not at the speed at which Senator Obama has been embraced at.  Public acceptance of a movement this quickly shouldn't necessarily be seen as a positive indication of where things are heading.  In fact, history is littered with quickly-embraced movements that turned out to be very bad for everyone involved.

  To be fair, I realize a great many good people support him, which is a plus.  And a great many crazies support McCain.  But I don't support McCain either, so I feel I'm safe on that side too. 

GUN RIGHTS

  Obama's public support for Coal Power while privately holding the belief that it should be taxed into bankruptcy makes me contemplate a couple of things.  1.  Where was the press on this issue, and why are we finding out his blatant hypocrisy the day before the election?  2.  What else is Senator Obama pretending to be for while is is actually against?

  Obama has indicated in the past that he would be in support of making hand guns illegal, and prosecuting people who use them against intruders in their own home.  As someone who supports the Second Amendment, gun rights, concealed weapons permits, this makes me worry because Obama is also now indicating he supports all these things.  If he is pretending to be centrist on coal power, is he also pretending to be centrist on this issue?  If he is elected, with a Congress controlled by his own party, will we find out how liberal he really is only after the election?

THE UNKNOWN

  I am concerned with what we don't know.  We know that the media has been biased in this election, and we are finding out things about Obama just now.  The Los Angeles Times is currently holding a tape of Obama at a function with anti-Israel speakers that they are refusing to release.  What else would they hide?

  Obama is a first term Senator who began his run for president a mere 143 days after being elected into office as a senator.  His 129 votes of 'present' in the Illinois senate are of some concern to me.  I don't think it disqualifies him for the job of president, but I'd rather have a president who knows whether they are for or against a bill and isn't afraid to stand up for it.  

  The media's inconsistencies in reporting on Senator Obama is odd to say the least, and dishonest at the worst.  I don't believe they did their job when it came to looking at Obama and reporting back to the public, and when he is running against someone in McCain who has one of the most visible records imaginable, that is a little of a disappointment.

CONCLUSION

  These are a few things that bother me about Obama.  While this isn't an exhaustive list, his misunderstanding of the Constitution is quite unsettling.  His extremely left views on abortion, and admittance to not being able to identify when human life begins are eye opening.  He is the most liberal senator in the Senate, which is amazing because to be labeled that he had to beat out Bernard Sanders, a member of the SOCIALIST party.  

I am not in love with Senator McCain, but I honestly think that the only person who could make me vote for McCain would be Obama.

Tomorrow I'll write my predictions for a victory of each candidate, and examine what I think will happen for each circumstance.