Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Obama Crushes Clinton in S.C.--Republicans Next? Even Ron Paul may not be able to Stop this guy.by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Watching Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech on Saturday night, I was moved. Hearing the people chant "YES WE CAN!" reminded me of hearing another Clinton ask "What time is it?" and receiving a resounding chorus of "IT'S TIME-FOR THEM TO GO!" before sweeping into the White House after it had been controlled for 12 years by Republicans.
As I was listening to him talk about bringing America together by moving past the nasty old party politics that plague Washington, I couldn't help but think of Hillary Clinton's talking about how the President needed to be ready to "manage the bureaucracy" while disparaging Obama's self-admittedly proclivity toward disorganization.
It occurred to me that maybe the reason Obama can bring people together is because he is disorganized. A person who is very organized has the need to compartmentalize everything, and in turn, everyone. Hillary Clinton may be the most organized person in the world, so it only makes sense that she would be one of the most divisive.
The saddest part about this speech is that as charismatic as Obama is, he is making himself out to be a liar. He may be able to bring the politicians together to do things like helping people who are losing their houses, providing health care for people who can't afford it, and make college more affordable. The problem is that he and the other politicians don't have any right to do this under the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the Document that Senator Obama would swear to uphold if he is sworn in as President. If you don't believe me, google "Presidential Oath of Office." So for him to make good on his campaign promises, he would have to become a liar.
But he does inspire confidence. Did you know that "Con" Man is short for "Confidence" Man? It means that someone can gain your confidence and then do things to you/for you that they have no right to do.
If you don't think this matters, consider that the only thing that really brings everyone together regardless of race, religion, or creed and makes us equal are our inaleniable rights. Those rights are protected by the Constitution. So while all of the promises sound good, if the promises would cause the maker of those promises lie from Day 1 in order to fulfill them, and the lie is in regard to upholding the only thing that brings us together, what good are the promises to begin with?
To put it another way, if you were considering marrying someone and they said, "I promise I will buy you that house one day", and you decided to marry that person based on that promise, that would be your right. But what makes you married are the vows you make on your wedding day. One of those is to "forsake all others." If the person you married could buy you that house, but they would have to sleep with someone else (over and over again) to do it, how important would that house be? Which promise is more important? That is what America must decide.
And it is why I am voting for Ron Paul. He's not promising anything. Except to keep the one promise he will make. You see, he believes that if the government gets out of your way, you can solve your own problems--as long as your rights are protected without fail. He actually believes in people. Regardless of color. Because he believes in the Constitution. And as far as managing the bureaucracy goes, well following the Constitution would make it a lot smaller and easier to manage because those dollars that support it would be used for you to buy healthcare or pay for your own houses instead of the politicians'.
If you really want that big house, vote for Barack or anyone else. If you want your spouse to be faithful, learn about Ron Paul. Is there really any wonder why we want "change" every decade or so? The problem in politics is that there are only two potential spouses in the world to choose from so when one of them cheats on us and we get sick of it we have to run back to the other one.
Your Fellow American,
John Armstrong
Like this Article? Thumb it.
Digg it if you know how; I don't.
Want to send it to friends? Send it to yourself first using the link below and then forward it to avoid spam filters.
Comment, it's fun.
Want a date or to assail me privately? Send pictures or comments to: strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com. Otherwise, post below.
As always, unlike the NFL, you have the author's permission to give accounts of, rebroadcast, retransmit, reproduce, or do anything else you'd like with this article to promote the Restoration of our Republic. Please post the link if you do repost this because I sometimes update the articles after their initial writing. But if you don't, don't worry about it--the message is more important than any minor corrections.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-01-26 21:20:38
What it boils down for me is the recognition that Washington has taken on too much power and control and the backside of all of these promises is that they take money and demand things from you by threat of jail.
Sure, it is great to use collectivism to solves problems. But the size of the group doesn't have to be ALL of us.
That just means that one doctrine fits all and that is impossible.
For all the efforts of the MSM Republican candidates to invoke his legacy, Obama is the Ronald Reagan of this race. Short on specifics, but long on feeling good. Obama's problem is that if he wins, he won't be entering the White House with the economy on a vigorous upswing, and his honeymoon will be very short.
I agree that he'd be harder to beat than Hillary, but I'd take my chances with RP pinning him down on specifically how he plans to resurrect Reaganism in America.
It looks like RP has won his brokered convention, at least a strong possibility. M Reagan is throwing out that Newt could win in a brokered convention. Sounds like a solid hedge to me since he has publicly stated that he will do everything in his power to kep RP from getting the nom.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
