Why I Oppose Barack Obama

At the rate things are going in this election year, I believe there are two eventual nominees: Barack Obama for the Democratic Party and John McCain for the Republican Party. While certainly this primary season didn’t go nearly as well as I would’ve liked, there comes a point where you have to evaluate the candidates left standing. John McCain wasn’t really even in my top 3 candidates of interest this year, but unfortunately he has prevailed as the nominee for the Republican party, which forces me to at least consider voting for him.

But then there’s Barack Obama. He’s sharp, articulate, smart, amiable, hip and overall likable. I’d even go as far as to say that he’s definitely got a leg up on McCain in the likable and hip categories. However, that’s just a matter of opinion (albeit an overall consensus opinion). Nonetheless, he’s a very high-profile figure in America right now. In fact, I’d say he’s the most popular Presidential candidate since JFK.

So when I look at Barack Obama, those qualities stand out. They stand out a lot. And if it were about those qualities alone, I’d probably find myself considering him. Unfortunately, if you examine his record, all the glitz of his personality seems to fade away to reveal a man who stands for nearly everything I oppose.

As a Christian American, there are certain issues that are central to my decision concerning a political candidate. I’m talking about social issues, namely abortion and gay marriage.

Abortion/Life Issues

On abortion, Barack Obama is staunchly pro-choice. He was given a 100% rating by the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). In many pro-choice circles, that’s definitely a badge of honor. Conversely, he was giving a 0% rating by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

In 2007, he voted against the banning of partial-birth abortion. Now partial-birth abortion isn’t a typical abortion. It involves partially removing the living fetus (baby) from the mother’s womb and killing it. This procedure is typically performed in the late stages of the pregnancy.

He also supports embryonic stem cell research, which often results in the destruction of human embryos. To me, this is a form of abortion on a premature scale. Stem cell reserach in and of itself is an undeniably good thing. But there are other sources of stem cells besides human embryos. So as a Christian, I believe we should avoid using human embryos for stem cell research.

Gay Rights/Marriage

On the issue of gay rights, Barack Obama is also quite liberal. He has stated that homosexuality is not a choice and is no more immoral than heterosexuality. While he does oppose gay marriage, he believes that it is a matter that should be left up to the states. Therefore, he opposes any federal amendment that would outlaw gay marriage.

While a federal amendment to the Constitution might be open to interpretation, Obama’s core beliefs on homosexuality seem to be in direct contrast to the Word of God (note Romans 1:18-32, 1st Corinthians 6:9). As a Christian, I personally cannot in good conscience, vote for someone who supports these things.

Other Issues

There are some issues that are mostly political in nature, which don’t typically lend themselves to any form of religious debate. However, I also disagree with Obama on a great deal of these issues as well.

As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I find very little comfort in Obama’s positions on gun control. I believe that our Social Security system is headed for bankruptcy. Therefore, I think we should have the option to privatize it at our own discretion. Obama opposes that. On illegal immigration, I believe we should enforce the rule of law by not rewarding undocumented immigrants who are here illegally with any form of amnesty or indefinite citizenship. Obama, along with John McCain, supported a bill that would grant a form of amnesty to illegal immigrants. He supported giving driver’s licenses to them as well.

As a pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-growth, small government, law-abiding conservative Christian American, I find Barack Obama to be the political epitome of virtually everything I oppose.

It’s not about his religion (which is Christianity not Islam). It’s not about his race. It’s not about his charm, flair, charisma, gravitas, personality or whatever you call it. It’s about his policies. I disagree with Barack Obama on policy. And that’s what democracy should be about, voting for someone based on their policies and values, not their religion, ethnicity, or background. It is policy and policy alone why I oppose Barack Obama as President of the United States.

For more on Barack Obama’s record and policies, check out OnTheIssues.org.

Advertisements

12 Responses to Why I Oppose Barack Obama

  1. peacelover says:

    Looking at your words, it appears that you’re talking with the racist within and accepting that part.

  2. Ed Benti says:

    I bet Braden supports the war in Iraq. Now that we know that Bush LIED and innocent people are being essentially MURDERED by our increasingly bizarre troops (murders, rapes, torture, just beyond belief, really) I wonder how anyone can sit around calling themselves “pro-life” and “law abiding”. (Hint: if you support the invasion of Iraq you are an accomplice to murder.)
    As for small government, let’s eliminate government safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, so we can all go back to the 19th Century solutions of society’s problems, you know, the Good Ol’ Days: poor houses, work houses, alms for the poor, people dying on the streets, slums sprouting up by venal corrupt landlords, pestilence, impoverished elderly…etc. Yeah, heck why use the DEMOCRATIC FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT TO CURTAIL ABUSE BY THE RICH???
    GET REAL.

  3. Braden says:

    Peacelover, could you please explain how you drew such a conclusion from what I wrote? That’s a rather harsh accusation and I’d like to what could’ve caused you to think that.

    Ed, I didn’t really have any intention of discussing the Iraq war, but since you brought it up, I’d like to point out a few things. Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons, which he used on his own people. He was a cruel and brutal dictator that ruled his people with an iron fist. We have given the Iraqi people a freedom that they never experienced under Hussein. Our brave military is accomplishing a great deal of good over in Iraq, in the face of a great deal of terrorist opposition that has killed both our soldiers and the Iraqi people. These isolated incidents you refer to are the actions of a select few people that do not represent the majority of our military. Now of course we have made mistakes in Iraq. Mistakes happen in any war. But I believe the good outweighs the bad in Iraq.

    As for small government, it seems that you believe in a cradle to the grave system where the government is responsible for everything in our lives. I don’t see it that way. I haven’t argued against Social Security (in fact, I think we should fix it because it’s broken). I haven’t argued against Medicare or Medicaid either. I just don’t believe that a government should have complete control over our lives. We weren’t founded that way. You act as if all of society’s problems could be repaired by the government. I don’t believe that at all. Government is the problem, not the solution. If you want government to have more control in your life, which you will pay for with higher taxes and limited options, then big government is for you. Try Europe. Ever read Fahrenheit 451? Orwell’s 1984? The government will take as much as you give them. And so far, they haven’t been able to manage what they’ve already been given. Why should we give them more?

  4. NH says:

    peacelover: If anyone is a racist it’s Obama. He belongs to a black separatist church which only ascribes to black values and Africa. They revere Louis Farrakhan. The pastor is anti-white. If he is elected, white people will become second class citizens. Are you for that?

    Also Obama is a world socialist controlled by the CFR and Zbigniew Brezhinski. He will go to war in Darfur, Pakistan, or any other place they tell him to.

    This article below proves that he’s merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.  

    “A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

    “The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).”
    “In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
    An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.

    In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!

    Read the rest here: 
    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml 

    “MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama’s presidential bid is a “revolutionary” phenomenon in the United States.”

    Yeah, the Marxist Revolution.

    Judge the man by the company he keeps. He’s a dangerous empty suit.

  5. Blue Stater (i.e. sapient humanoid) says:

    This blog post indicates what is wrong with a significant portion of the American electorate. Too many voters seem to vote based on fake issues put forth to distract from the real issues. You never provided any serious reasons to oppose Obama, such as the fact that he supports the welfare state, because he is in favor of increasing spending and taxes, or perhaps because you find him weak on national defense. Instead you demonstrate yourself to be another white trash redstate moron who votes on the single issue of “homo-bortion.”

    Braden’s Checklist for Presidential Candidates:
    Abortion- The candidate not only believes that a (fertilized gamete) zygote is a complete human being, and that terminating a pregnancy at any stage is a sin, but also, that it should be a FEDERAL CRIME to abort at any stage and perhaps that the FEDERAL government ought to launch a “War on Abortion” to resolve this matter.
    “Family Values” & Gay Rights- The candidate hates queers.

    This is the problem with the GOP. The only issues he even mentions in dismissing Obama are abortion and gays. In other words, WEDGE ISSUES. Personally I consider myself an independent, but I plan to vote for Obama, not because of any unconditional loyalty to the Democratic Party, but because I would rather elect a socialist like Obama than that fascist McCain. Braden likes to pretend he is a “Reagan conservative” who looks for the entire platform, yet he devotes almost the entire space to two (non)issues and only brief overviews on about 3 other issues. What does a self-declared “Reagan conservative” really mean when he says the following?

    …pro-life (opposes abortion), pro-family (hates fags), pro-2nd Amendment (gun nut, possibly NRA and/or militia member), pro-growth (supports robber baron style corporatism as opposed to welfare socialism AND laissez-faire capitalism), small government (SEE BELOW), conservative Christian (that is conservative-Christian, not a Christian who is politically conservative, but a religious reactionary and a fundie; theocrat)

    I do not see how any social conservative could consider themselves in favor of small government. Theocrats like Braden want to impose their morality and their religious values on everyone else. They want government to manage the lives of citizens. To such people, “small government” means let the poor, working class, middle class, and small business fight it out on their own while letting the wealthy do what they please with their great wealth. All you theocracy advocates call yourselves conservatives and sing the praises of Saint Ronald Reagan, all the while paying lip service to small government. The theocons who swarm today’s Republican Party despise anything remotely libertarian. But what does Ronald Reagan think about libertarianism?

    “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
    Ronald Reagan as quoted in Reason Magazine, July 1975

    The GOP is imploding and will continue to do so because the Republicans lost the principles held by Goldwater and Reagan and was coopted by two factions: neocons, the party elite, the vanguard, the shepherds; and “theocons,” the masses of hicks and religious lunatics forming the party base. The neocons stand for nothing more than corporatism, empire (“global hegemony”), and power. The theocons want a theocracy. The neocons will pander to their base of useful idiots and the theocons will hitch a ride. Admittedly the blue state neo-Reaganites, libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives, are (to the extent that they are not themselves neocons), also useful idiots, albeit not as much as the theocons. Not necessarily because red state reactionaries are the more idiotic faction than blue state Republicans (Many socially liberal conservatives lean libertarian and vote for Republicans out of fear of the “socialist Democrats” despite the fact that the current GOP is neither socially liberal nor fiscally conservative. At least the neocon overlords will throw a bone or two to the theocon useful idiots), but because the “so-cons” are more useful to the neocons than the “fi-cons” are. The Republican Party collapsed largely due to the lack of a unifying candidate. The candidates included a McCain and Giuliani (neocons), Romney (“Reagan coalition”-mostly corporatists and so-cons), Huckabee (theocons, so-cons), Paul (fi-cons, libertarian contingent, paleocons).

  6. Braden says:

    Blue Stater, where to start? With the language you use, it seems that you hate everyone except for libertarians, which is ironic since Obama is virtually the polar opposite of a libertarian. Am I a theocrat because I don’t believe people should have the right to kill babies? Am I a theocrat because I agree with thousands of years of recorded history when it comes to marriage? You have oversimplified every position and used language that reveals your own ignorance.

  7. Charlotte says:

    Obama sizzles in his speeches but where’s the steak? He’s a lightweight liberal that will do absolutely nothing for this country. Let him mature & run again in 2012 or so. I hope the people wake up before it’s too late…

  8. Blue Stater (i.e. sapient humanoid) says:

    If I hated everyone except for libertarians I would never vote for Obama. After all, I can always vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or write in Ron Paul, but I am willing to vote for Obama despite his socialistic leanings. (And Obama may be far from libertarianism on economic matters and gun rights, but not necessarily on other issues.)

    You are a theocrat because you advocate THEOCRACY. Because you believe that the government must obey and impose YOUR personal religious ideals on the nation. If you truly believe that abortion constitutes “murder” then why not work towards overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing states to regulate or outlaw it as they deem fit? After all, even laws concerning murder (of living, breathing human beings) and their enforcement thereof remain at the state level. The logical outcome of your position (as opposed to the more reasonable goals of pro-life activists) is a federal “War Against Abortion” in the Wilsonian War-Against-Something format usually launched by reactionaries (e.g. War Against Drugs, War Against Terror) but occasionally leftists (War On Poverety). [Note- I could at least tolerate your views on the abortion issue, but there is a difference between wanting to provide legal protections for the unborn on the one hand, and wanting to force your entire platform hook, line, and sinker onto the entire nation. The point is that abortion is a CONTROVERSIAL issue, and many people are bound to disagree, hence my problem with one-size-fits all abortion-for-all/abortion-for-none schemes.]

    You are a theocrat because you believe that the function of government is to enforce the will of God. Ever hear of the first amendment? The reason for freedom of religion and sepparation of church and state (establishment clause) is to allow individuals to take on religious duties they see fit, but not to “save” the citizenry. Similarly, the same sex marriage issue is a FAKE ISSUE and a means for the neocon GOP to play off the fears of homophobic backwoods yokels who somehow believe “queers are gonna destroy the American family” or some such nonsense. First of all, very few candidates are actually advocating extending the definition of marriage. Second of all, the argument about ancient institutions is irrelevant. If marriage was always between a man and a woman why is a Constitutional Amendment even needed? Why does God need an Amendment to protect a tradition he allegedly established? Is God so low on magic power that he needs us sinners to defend his institutions? The socially conservative base is the mindless powerplant of the GOP. Whether you like it or not, Bush or whomever would pretend to share your values. If you all at least nominated Huckabee then you would have one of yours as a head of the movement.

    I say the sooner the social conservatives are marginalized en masse, the better for the American political process. It is time that Americans who have no interest in returning to the Dark Ages speak out. Unlike yourself and others who have been passed over by the Enlightenment, more Americans are beginning to realize that government exists to serve the people, not vice versa. As a matter of fact, if the Republicans nominated a Barry Goldwater, the “theocons” would desert the party en masse. They would likely sit out most elections, or better yet, form a third party and experience the same fate as the Socialist, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties.

    On the other hand, even though I always admired Abraham Lincoln growing up (as un-libertarian as he may have been in many respects), I sometimes wish that the South seceded anyway. You would have been better off as well.

    Whenever you use that one liner about using “language that reveals your own ignorance” it is obvious that you: do not understand what I wrote, did not even bother to read it in its entirety, and/or offended you for calling you what you are. (Perhaps I should have used euphemisms so as not to hurt your little feelings.)

    And you might not like being reminded that you are a lower/middle class descendent of cosanguinous white Appalacians, or person of lower intelligence and/or education, but I have bad news for you if you think that “your” party has any respect for you. To them, you are just a pawn. As long as they can rely on you to blindly vote for them, they will act friendly. Fake issues like the mythical “queer agenda” and other scare tactics are useful for getting a valuable demographic on their side in a phony kulturkampf (“culture war”). Think about it. Has George W. Bush (or his father) really worked that hard towards your goals? He was good at rallying the troops together but after eight years did not succeed in taking America more than a miniscule step closer to theocracy (despite his success in moving the government in a more statist and authoritarian direction).

    Which brings up the question, why not discuss the REAL issues that normal Americans care about? Namely, the Iraq War for one, which you did not even mention until prompted by a replier.

    “Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons…”
    [Fair enough, but the dubious definition of “WMD” includes everything from Civil War era chem weapons to thermonuclear warheads that could sink islands. It is clear that in the context of Iran, WMD implies nuclear weapons, and I suspect the Administration had nuclear weapons in mind when discussing Iraq. Either way, no WMD were found, and it is certainly not the case that Saddam Hussein had any kind of nuclear arsenal present or in the works.]

    “…which he used on his own people.”
    [Another NEOCON LIE! Saddam did not use chemical weapons on “his own people” though he did gas the Kurds. Saddam Hussein was an Arab of Sunni faith, and the Kurds were not his own people because “Iraq” is a synthetic geopolitical construct and the Kurds were basically subjects of his empire. While Saddam’s acts were horrific war crimes, when one argues that he “gassed his own people” they lose because it is like saying the Japanese commit atrocities against “their own people” in Korea and Manchuria because those areas were annexed by the Japanese Empire for a time. Saddam Hussein: brutal dictator (YES) oppressed his OWN PEOPLE (NO).]

    “He was a cruel and brutal dictator that ruled his people with an iron fist.”
    [No argument here, but it is ironic that the US has ignored and even supported cruel and brutal dictators. Americans did nothing to stop fascist dictators like Francisco Franco and even supported fascist dictators such as Batista, Diem, Pinochet, and the Ayatollah… even Saddam Hussein! It is clear the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not a humanitarian one. Afterall, the USA is not some magical charity that kills all the bad people and brings justice to the third world. A look at the sad history of American interventionism during the least century reveals that US intervention was never about human rights, but about America’s national (imperial) interests. Sadly, Saddam Hussein will be replaced by another iron-fisted dictator, only this one will be a quisling, a puppet ruler loyal to “America’s national interests.”]

    “We have given the Iraqi people a freedom that they never experienced under Hussein.”
    [A rediculous point. Even if the people of Iraq have “more freedom” what good is it if their lives and well-being are threatened by perpetual civil war and random acts of terrorism? Bogus elections are not progress. The best hope for that sad region is to give the Kurds, Sunnites, and Shiites self-determination, something you oppose and consider an idiotic notion. Otherwise expect an iron fisted despot to emerge to keep people in line. The record of the twentieth century is clear. The United States NEVER succeeded in exporting democracy, then again no other country has succeeded in that respect either. You can not have democracy or liberty without self-determination.]

    “Our brave military is accomplishing a great deal of good over in Iraq”
    [Depends how you define “good.” Even though many soldiers have commit all sorts of atrocities such as murders and rapes, they are thankfully in the minority. Most American troops are mere accomplices. However, ALL servicemen had a role in destabilizing the country. By toppling the Saddam Hussein (“house of cards”) Regime, we created a power vacuum. As horrible as Saddam Hussein was he at least managed to hold that nation together. Btw, your terminology is suspiciously similar to GWB’s rhetoric. Maybe because you are an unthinking drone who copies Bush talking points. How about mentionin our Great Leader, Premier George W. Bush along with our brave military.]

    “”

  9. Jens says:

    Wow! It didn’t take the whackjobs long to come out of the woodwork here. Sheesh. And not just liberal or conservative but both, in the most vitriolic forms possible.

    Braden, I thought your post was pretty good. I agree that the issues you raise are for the most part wedge issues, but it’s your prerogative to use those to make your descision. They are wedge issues for a reason.

    NH, you are way out of line and way off the charts. I personally tune out people who use language that makes it appear any candidate is somehow a “Manchurian candidate” for one group or another. Your standards of proof are obviously extremely low if you believe Obama’s church is “Black-seperatist” or that he is “controlled” by a shadowy group of Marxists bent on taxing the world to it’s knees. Please leave your Black Helicopter fantasies to yourself, they are boring. If you’d like I can mail you some tinfoil to put on your head.

    I’m not an Obama supporter. In fact I think both Democratic candidates are pretty poor as is McCain. Still, this baseless garbage is fairly hard to take.

  10. Braden says:

    Blue Stater,
    If you knew anything about me and what I support, you’d know that I believe in overturning Roe v. Wade so it CAN be left up to the states. I supported a man that believed that (Mitt Romney). You’re fighting a straw man on the theocracy arguments. Are you operating under the assumption that since I’m a social conservative I’m automatically a theocrat? That’s just silly and ignorant. So are you saying that the Kurds that Saddam gassed weren’t Iraqi citizens (i.e. the Iraqi people)? It’s not a lie. It’s a well-known fact. Are you going to tell me you don’t believe in the Holocaust either?

    Ron Paul and Barack Obama are essentially polar opposites on everything but the Iraq War. The idea that you would swing like a pendulum from Paul to Obama makes me question whether or not you have any core values of your own. If I used your broken logic (the same logic that qualifies me to be a theocrat), you’re a sardonic anarchist, which is actually probably more accurate than the idea of me being a theocrat.

    Jens, fair analysis, thank you. I see your side on the idea of “wedge issues,” but I must admit that I find them very important.

  11. would like ore info on obAMAS STAND ON STEM CELL AND ABORTION BEFORE WE VOTE TOMORROW.

  12. Braden says:

    On Stem Cell research, Obama supported the passage of the Stem Cell Research Bill. He also voted to expand research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

    On abortion, Obama voted against banning partial birth abortion, claiming that he trusts women to make the decision for themselves. He voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

    He’s as liberal as you can possibly get on abortion and Stem Cell research. If you’re pro-life, Barack Obama is definitely not the guy for you.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: