Fear of a Black President

c.i. wrote-



The objectives in the latter are plain and obvious: the relief of pain and suffering on which most people agree. The objectives in the former are anything anybody wants them to be when voted for and are often disputed.

Are they not both for the "general welfare of society?"

In the above I have underlined my use of the words prohibit, prohibits, prohibited and your multiple use of the word should.

You appear to be incorrectly inferring I am stating that if something is not prohibited by the USA Constitution, then it should be permitted. I am not stating that. I am simply stating the obvious. Anything prohibited by the USA Constitution should not be permitted.

Now to address your implied question: Should everything not prohibited by the USA Constitution be permitted?

Answer: Not only NO, but HELL NO!

I say that whether or not anything at all not prohibited by the USA Constitution should be permitted is a decision Congress, or State Legislatures, or individuals have been delegated by the USA Constitution to make.
For example:

Congress has in fact explicitly granted individuals in the USA the right to use post roads.

The USA Constitution does not permit the federal government to support or even design either public education or public health care. However, each and every one of the 50 state legislatures may be permitted by their individual state constitutions to support or even design either public education or health care.

Respect for the rule of law requires the federal government not to support or even design either public education or public health care. If you don't like that, you have the alternative of convincing enough people to follow the process for amending the USA Constitution in accord with the following:



I'm opposed to such an amendment. I think such an amendment would ultimately lead to the economic collapse of our Constitutional Republic, and that would not "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

Aren't the military veterans part of "the general public?" Why did the feds create all those veteran's hospitals all over the US?

What is the feds doing with the Department of Education? Just another money-spending, do-noting, department? Even the GOP administration and congress support(ed)s it.

How about the Department of Health?

Have you informed any administration and the congress that they are in violation of the Constitution? If not, what's your beef?

YES!

And? You failed to make your point; I wonder why.

NO! I did not fail to make my point. Actually, I'm making progress faster than I anticipated. However, not fast enough to achieve total success in one-year.

Hell, it took me 5 years to finally get elected to my local school board back when my kids were in school. I think it may take me a tad longer to achieve what I want now. What I want now is America to return to a constitutional republic. It is my goal to achieve for my seven grandchildren and for their future children and for their future grandchildren, et cetera and all their contemporaries.

It took the Wright Brothers almost 10 years to get off the ground in a powered airplane. Some say, developing ANWR to full oil lifting capacity will take less than 10 years.

It's the damnedest thing. Nothing I achieved was ever totally accomplished in my first effort.

ican wrote: NO! I did not fail to make my point. Actually, I'm making progress faster than I anticipated. However, not fast enough to achieve total success in one-year.


Is this anything like the "progress" Bush keeps talking about when he mentions Iraq? What does your "progress" look like? Is congress going to reverse itself and eliminate all or any those unConstitutional programs?

Check with me again in July 2013.

snood, I haven't read the entire thread...so I hope I'm not too far off.

I started out with a degree in Group Work Education from George Williams College, a YMCA college on Drexel Ave. in Chicago. From then on my planning/thinking was filtered through my small group process mind. A few years later I was active in the education system and then community education.

I see Obama as one who understands the power and strength of the neighborhood...the people.

Yeah, sure! Check with you? ROFL

You mind telling us some of your hopes and dreams so that we can sneer?

Grow up, dipweed.

Why some Conservatives will vote for Barack Obama. POSTED July 8, 6:54 PM

(picture: Obamacans Unite: obamacans.wordpress.com)

Thomas Sowell, in his piece "Conservatives for Obama?" made the following statement:

"A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term ?'Obamacons' to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama."

For the esteemed Mr. Sowell, whom I read a lot, and other folks who are scratching their collective heads over why Conservatives will vote for Obama over McCain in November, here are a few reasons for you to consider:

Reorganizing our National Security apparatus - Since the passing of the Patriot Act, America has restructured its intelligence and national security procedures to prevent another terrorist attack. Conservatives understand the need for surveillance methods to prevent another attack on the American people and our property; however, not all of them support the use of fear to systematically change the social contract between the government and the people regarding their civil liberties under the law. They would, however, support a reexamination of segments of the Patriot Act that would re-establish the proper bounds between government need and individual liberty.

Immigration Reform - Over the past two decades our borders have become porous and that lack of attention has threatened our national security. Conservatives understand that many of these non-documented visitors are hardworking people who currently serve in many important aspects of the American economy. It is neither feasible, nor in the country's best economic interest, to seek to deport millions of people who contribute to our fiscal and social vibrancy as a nation. To do so would require creating a new agency of the national government with thousands of employees to implement this deportation policy. There are Conservatives who feel this type of reactionary policy is short-sighted and centered more on partisanship than in providing a common sense solution. For these individuals, a pragmatic Conservative stand would support a policy that will identify benchmarks to obtain United States citizenship.

Foreign Policy - To ensure a safe America, some Conservatives believe that the primary issue of foreign policy that has to be addressed by the 44th President of the United States is to rebuild a relationship of mutual trust between us and our international allies. America has lost its leadership position in the world over the last six years. This is not only damaging in the relationship with our allies, but also hazardous in our diplomatic maneuverings with countries such as China, Iran and North Korea. A Conservative approach would support a direction of foreign policy that is practical and pragmatic (i.e. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). A foreign policy that uses diplomatic, economic and military assets to reach achievable goals on the international stage.

Healthcare - Millions of Americans can not seek preventative healthcare assistance to address the myriad of issues they face on a daily basis. These unchecked health concerns eventually become emergency room visits that help to drive up insurance costs for employers and employees covered under medical plans. A pragmatic Conservative platform would support the development of a voluntary universal healthcare plan that allows flexibility of services and allows for States to meet the needs of their citizens without burdensome and unfunded regulations from Washington, D.C. through our constitutionally mandated federal system of government.

The Economy and the War in Iraq - Under the reasons for establishing a new government, Thomas Jefferson stated that government is charged with protecting "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" of its citizens. A strong, robust economy falls under the heading of the "pursuit of happiness." The U.S. has spent in excess of $100 Billion a year on a war that over seventy percent of the American people do not want, representing twenty percent of our annual GDP. Our current economic condition, with rising prices for everything from gas to food coupled with stagnant wages, has only provided a very few people with the ability to pursue happiness. A pragmatic Conservative approach would support a carefully planned disengagement of our troops from Iraq. The financial resources used to pay for the war may be used on a real economic stimulus plan that will be focused on re-training American workers and businesses to be competitive in the global marketplace.

Cultural Socialism - Government should exist to provide needed services to its citizens and NOT to mandate the societal wishes of a few on the entire citizenry. National Security, Economic Viability, and needed Domestic Policies, such as Education, should be the purview of the National government. Over the last eight years government has decided that it would rather focus its energy on gay marriage, the right to live or die, and kicking Howard Stern off of the air.
It is NOT the responsibility of the government to mandate to the people what their individual decisions should be. This is the antithesis of individual responsibility and a Conservative would be in favor of removing governmental impediments to utilizing our freedom of choice.

Some Conservatives have finally realized, after twenty years, that national elections are too critical to waste on partisan rhetoric that does not solve any of the serious problems of our country. Government should focus on strengthening our borders, cutting our debt, and allowing the middle class to prosper by cutting taxes and reduce overall spending. Our elected and appointed officials should let individuals deal with the moral issues surrounding their decisions…let's get back to original idea that the Founders of this Republic birthed, that Government should not mandate the extent of Individual Liberty.

--Obamacons United

Gee, what a slap in the head that was for neocons and republicans.

Mrs. Bill Clinton may have been the better choice for Democr
Fear of a black president?

I find myself fearing his lack of experience.

I fear that he is not qualified for the position.

I fear the dumbmasses will make an uninformed decision on election day.

Skin color is nothing I fear.

There is no rational or logical reason to judge or fear any human because of their particular pigmentation alone.







Mrs. Bill Clinton may have been the better choice for Democrats . . .

Re: Mrs. Bill Clinton may have been the better choice for De

Woah, get him, Reverend, go for the nuts! I more or less dislike Jesse Jackson, but I admire the meanness, I consider it an unqualified virtue.

NY Post - JESSE JACKSON SAYS...

Then we've got Obama playing butch again, saying the kids are off limits, whereas McCain's catching flak for joking about Iran as has been his custom. I recall McCain showed up on MTV with one of his kids a while back, said he digs 'NIN'. I mean, there's a picture taking shape here... **** happens, everybody's tough, everyone likes their kids - what we can do is make it work for us to a greater or lesser extent.

So to bring things full circle, a black president, I'm not spending time typing to pat myself on the back for having the right idea about it, open mindedness is it's own end. Whether I'd be happy with Colin Powell or someone else - it is what it is - but there is the condition of having a black pres in and of itself, as such, which independent of all else means one thing or lack thereof, and then there's the possible baggage, real or perceived, and the realities that would have to be in place... I say all that to say this - a black pres is one thing, but the probable black pres, I mean, the DNC being a more statistically likely affiliation, and the candidate who materialized as it turns out...