Since John McCain pulled the genius move of selecting Palin as his running mate, Barack Obama will likely be the next President of the United States. Because of this, I felt obligated to go actually find our what this guy's ideas for the country really are, since all I have heard so far is that he is for "change" and "progress." Really?
Personally, I am against both "change" and "progress." If it were left up to me, high school students would still use an abacus in the classroom, and we would teach Creation (and not this "Evolution" monkey-mutant nonsense) in schools. I don't believe that the book of Genesis could possibly be interpreted as anything other than the King James raw facts, least of all some sort of "Metaphor." In fact, the covers of Biology books would look like this:
(pictured above): Creationism's depiction of what the world may have looked like before Jesus killed the dinosaurs, some 10,000 years ago. . .
Haha, sorry to any Creation Scientists who may read this, I had to put this on here. I'm just kidding, I'm not actually sorry. . .
Anyway, so I decided to go ahead and check out Barack Obama's website, http://www.barackobama.com/ and look to some of Senator Obama's stances on Civil Rights issues. To my amazement, the stances portrayed little more than a crude mix-and-match (I believe the military would refer to this as a "clusterf*ck") - censored for political correctness.
Here is part of the list of Obama's goals regarding Civil Rights: Combat Employment Discrimination; End Racial Profiling; and Expand Hate Crimes Stautes. However, there is a slight problem with these three policy goals: there are two irreconcileably conflicting agendas at play. The basic underlying assumptions behind the goals listed are completely mismatched. While the first two, combatting employment discrimination and ending racial profiling, are principled upon the basic assumption people should be treated equally. The third, expanding hate crimes statutes, is principled upon the basic assumption that certain designated groups should be set aside and treated differently.
I know what some of you are thinking here, "U_D, these goals are simply meant to end the arbitrary discrimination that has plagued this country for hundreds of years." No, hate crimes laws operate on the same arbitrary, dumbass assumptions that (I believe) most people wanted to be rid of to begin with. (Get' a ladder Paw, he's climbin' on his soapbox). Honestly, I find hate crimes laws to be one of the most offensive things in our society. This is literally a part of our Criminal Justice System making a ridiculous distinction between "hate" crimes and plain 'ole fashioned crime. For some reason, it is completely different when one person wants to kill another person because of his/her race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. . . How? Does it make the bullet more terrible? Is one person worth more than another, or is it just worse when you kill someone who is different from yourself?
Last time I checked, when a someone decides to murder another person, he has pretty much given up on the whole "equality among men" thing anyway (unless he is just trying to kill everyone equally, including himself - in which case lets hope he starts with the latter). My point here is, pretty much every crime is a "hate" crime. (Crimes of passion sure seem a lot like hatred. Heck, even assassins are working for someone who "hates" the victim.) That said, why distinguish based on these ridiculous assumptions when our goal is equality?
Also of note, the "civil rights" portion of "issues" mentions nothing of Amendments 1 & 2 of the United States Constitution, or even the subject matter of those amendments, which have been hotly debated and litigated recently. I can somewhat understand Amendment 1, I am not sure Obama really gets much heat on this one, but Amendment 2 is still hot contention (and in my opinion an asset he isn't playing up enough) For example, this summer, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia handgun ban as in violation of the 2nd amendment, stating that Americans had a general right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes. This, by the way, is the first time in history that the Supreme Court has said this, and a lot of questions remain with respect to how this may affect future weapons legislation. But is this mentioned as a "civil rights" issue?
Nope. Wouldn't want to alienate the pompous, gun-fearing contingency. . .
How about other issues?
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
How long is this guy planning on staying in office again? Hell by that time I'll be damn near ready to start drawing my social security check. (haha just kidding, there won't be any social security when I'm old)
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
Too late! We are already a world leader in building a warmer, greener earth. Heck, once we can get rid of some of that polar ice-cap nonsense, we can turn Waco into beachfront property. I mean, what did the polar ice-cap ever do for you?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden recognize that we must forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America's hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.
I am confused on this one. Great conservation challenges? Translation: "We are making an obscure and cryptic reference to 'hunters' and 'anglers' *which we aren't* and these people must take an active role in our 'coalition', to what end we are not really sure, as our Dr. Martin - wearing affiliates will likely start leaning on us pretty soon to make all of you start eating Boca Burgers."
Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.
Aside from the fact that I found this is the "Miscellaneous Issues" section under "Sportsmen" (and certainly not anywhere near "civil rights," even though our founding fathers somehow saw fit to place it second in the Bill of Rights, in explicit terminology), I actually have to give credit to Obama for saying it creates an individual right (therefore agreeing with the Supreme Court majority).
Improve Rural Quality Of Life: Combat Methamphetamine
I don't know about this one, not only are you destroying an important part of the Arkansas economy, you are denying these people a valuable education in Chemistry.
Come on, Mr. Obama, think of the children, and the education we are throwing away. . .
Oh well, so the guy steps to the beat of his party's drum (or drums, come to think of it, with the scattershot of the Democratic Party's various interests, he's practically river-dancing). He is a presidential candidate after all, and if he decided not to go along with his party, he'd end up in the same candidate box as Jesse "the body" Ventura. All in all, I think this candidate is a worthwhile one.
(Just kidding, I am writing myself in!)
