Before I launch into some Obama bashing, I should, to be “fair and balanced,” say a thing or two about McCain.
McCain wasn’t my first pick. Or my second. Or my third, or fourth, or...
McCain rarely misses an opportunity remind conservatives of why we dislike him so. He goes out of his way to skewer conservatives.
The best argument for voting for McCain is that while Obama is bad on all the issues that McCain is bad on, McCain is better on a few other issues. Obama is uniformly bad. And I think that’s an adequate reason to vote for McCain.
That doesn’t mean it’s an adequate reason for me. McCain is daring conservatives to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. It’s a game of chicken.
I don’t know that I’m prepared to vote for a candidate under such coercive terms. Don’t count on me to blink first. I’m not responsible for this dilemma.
It’s kind of like one of those movie scenarios in which your captors force you to choose which captive will die to spare the lives of your fellow captives: “Either shoot him or we’ll shoot you!” In that situation, kill us all and let God sort it out.
I think one can justify voting for McCain, and I also think one can justify sitting out this election.
I’m also curious to see who he will pick for Veep. If it’s Romney, count me out.
I’d add that even if McCain is elected, there’s not much he can do should the Democrats pick up a veto-proof majority in Congress. Let’s not be so focused in the presidential election that we overlook the Congressional election. That’s equally important.
Now let’s shift to Obama. And let’s begin with white “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.
“Green said young evangelicals are ‘tired of the confrontational politics we've had over the last couple of decades’."
Fine. Let’s elect conservatives. That would put an end to confrontational politics.
Barring that, I prefer gridlock to smooth traffic flow over a cliff.
“And want ‘a broader agenda’.”
I don’t want a broader agenda. I want a narrower agenda. Less government, not more.
“And a much more inclusive approach’."
There’s nothing “inclusive” about liberal social policies. It’s all about groupthink.
“According to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 35 percent of young white evangelicals said society should accept homosexuality, compared to 22 percent of older evangelicals.”
“Accept” in what sense? To have all the same rights as normal people?
“While a commitment to poverty-fighting is nothing new for Christians, 58 percent of young white evangelicals would choose ‘bigger government providing more services’ over ‘smaller government providing fewer services’."
Of course, gov’t doesn’t fight poverty. It promotes poverty. It promotes a culture of dependency. In the welfare state, where you penalize productive citizens and subsidize unproductive citizens, there’s no incentive to work.
“Smith said her top priorities are the environment, poverty, and health care.”
Of course, this is code language for global warming, welfare, and universal health insurance. From what I can tell, anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
Welfare doesn’t solve poverty. It creates and perpetuates poverty.
Universal heath insurance is a pyramid scam. Who’s going to pay? Not the poor. The rich? No. The rich shelter their income. Look at Ted Kennedy. He’s living off of his old man’s fortune.
Here’s a little history lesson for the younger generation. I grew up in a one-income, middle class family during the 60s and 70s. We didn’t have health insurance back them. No one did. It was a fee-for-service system. And it was affordable. We didn’t need heath insurance.
Insurance isn’t cost effective. If insurance were cost-effective, insurance companies would go out of business. They turn a profit on insurance because you pay in more than they pay out. It’s really pretty obvious.
In fact, government sponsored health insurance drives up the cost of health care. If gov’t is footing the bill, then the companies don’t have to be competitive. Just look at the post office.
BTW, I’m not knocking insurance, per se. But insurance is no solution to health care costs that annually rise higher than the rate of inflation. You end of with rationed health care. Just look at the UK.
“They're the issues that affect her most—more than abortion or gay marriage—and she thinks they're the issues Jesus prioritized, too: ‘I know that Jesus said visit the sick, feed the hungry,’ she said. ‘I feel like I'm not going against my faith by putting those issues at the forefront’."
First of all, she mentioned three issues, not just one. Was Jesus a member of the Green Party?
He also didn’t talk about the sick in general or the poor in general. That has reference to sick or hungry Christians.
BTW, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be charitable. But the Bible distinguishes between people who are poor through no fault of their own (e.g. widows and orphans) and people who are poor due to their lifestyle choices (e.g. sluggards).
In addition, the Bible proposes various forms of workfare (e.g. indentured service, gleaning the fields) rather than welfare. It proposes interest free loans rather than food stamps. You have to repay a loan.
"The whole gay thing?’ she says. ‘Jesus never mentioned homosexuals at all’."
Let’s see—he condemned fornication (Mt 5:19), defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Mt 19:4-6), and mentioned God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:15). Just what Bible is she reading?
Anyway, it wouldn’t matter if Jesus was silent on the subject. Christian theology isn’t limited to a red-letter edition of the Gospels. Jesus upheld OT ethics, and he also appointed men to speak on his behalf.
Now let’s transition to black “evangelicals” who plan to vote for Obama.
“I started by explaining that for African Americans, there is a sense of hope no longer being deferred. Instead, hope is at the front door knocking furiously, waiting to see if African Americans will answer. If we open the door, forty million African Americans are going to witness a fellow African American getting the largest slice of the American Dream Pie—a dessert many had hoped to see people of color eat in their lifetime, but the many fell asleep having embraced such promises from afar.”
In other words, vote for him for the empty symbolism. That’s racist. It’s racial tokenism. Vote for a black—any black. Would Redmond vote for Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe?
Black “evangelicals” would be selling themselves cheap if they cast their vote for empty symbolism.
“As the struggle for social and economic equality has been a struggle for all African Americans, regardless of belief system(s), we all share in the joy when one of our own achieves the (presumptive) nomination for the highest office in the land.”
In other words, if you neighbor wins the lottery, then you win the lottery. Except that you don’t. If you neighbor wins the lottery, he gets the big fat check, not you. You’re exactly where you were before he won.
So this is more empty symbolism.
“An office that has been reserved for white males only until now.”
I wouldn’t say the presidency is been “reserved” for white males only until now. Running Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for president isn’t much of a test.
“Obama’s candidacy would allow all African Americans to say to our forefathers, “we finally did it!’…”
More empty symbolism. Your forefathers can’t hear you. They’re dead and buried.
“Hope, yea victory, is finally here! We are equal at the highest level!”
That’s an illusion. If Obama is elected, it will be white votes that put him over the top. His success or failure still depends on white power.
“If we take DuBois’ musings as an accurate analysis of African American existence, we can see another factor involved in Christian African Americans’ support of Obama: identity.”
Which has nothing to do with Christian identity.
“We now have a candidate who we think identifies with the experience of African Americans.”
No, he identifies with his white Ivy League professors.
“He has experienced the struggle of the great-great-great-grandchildren of slaves (even though he is not one).”
No, he experienced affirmative action.
“So surely, it is supposed, he will fight for policies and programs that will be sensitive to the plight of his people and that work toward uplifting the entire race of people.”
Social programs don’t uplift black Americans. They hold them down.
“To the place where the playing field is level.”
In what sense is the playing field tilted?
“Surely, as one of us, he will sign into law measures that will protect the gains made during the Civil Rights and post-Civil Rights Eras.”
If Obama loses, will the South reinstate Jim Crow? I don’t think so.
“Because he is one of us, we have hope that we will no longer have to look at ourselves through the contemptuous eyes of others—i.e., white Americans.”
Do white Americans look with contempt on black Americans? That’s a pretty sweeping statement.
“We now can look at ourselves through the eyes of the man who could hold the most well-known office in the free-world, and he can look at the world through our eyes.”
This, too, is racist. It reflects a racial inferiority complex. A need for symbolic affirmation.
I’ve never voted for president to validate my personal identity. I’ve never seen myself through the eyes of my president. I never saw myself through the eyes of Bill Clinton.
The implication of Redmond’s statement is that black Americans need to prove themselves to themselves, prove themselves to white Americans, and prove themselves to the world.
Once again, that’s a racist sentiment. It reflects a racial inferiority complex.
If you really think you’re equal, then you have nothing to prove. No one to impress. You’re secure in your own identity.
“For African Americans, to deny Obama would then be, in some sense, to deny one’s own identity.”
In other words, any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor. What does this say about Redmond’s priorities?
And how does his attitude differ from the attitude of a Klansman? What’s the difference between white identity politics and black identity politics?
For example, Bobby Jindal is a rising star in the GOP. Would it be a denial of my white identity to vote for an East Indian American? Why should racial identity—whether mine or his—even be a consideration?
“Being able to see the potential for mutual embracing of identities in a candidate further means that African Americans will not feel the need to settle on the candidate who represents the lesser of two evils.”
Only if racial identity trumps Christian identity or moral identity.
“By common consent, many African Americans feel that their votes are taken for granted by one major political party, and only courted as tokenism by the other major party.”
There’s some truth to that. It’s a vicious cycle. Republicans ignore most black candidates because most black candidates are liberal. Most black candidates ignore the GOP in return.
We need movement in both directions. The GOP should seek out talented conservative “minorities” while talented conservative “minorities” should seek out the GOP.
“The votes do not result in policy changes that benefit African Americans as a whole no matter which party’s candidate wins office.”
Conservative policies benefit every race.
“An Obama candidacy immediately changes the hopeless feelings of resignation as the fall approaches.”
“Higher than average African American attendance at the polls in November could be a reflection of the joy brought on by the ability to pick a candidate without mental or emotional reservation and resignation.”
But they should have mental reservations about Obama. Indeed, that’s an understatement.
“An Obama nomination looks like a nomination for social justice – far more than does a nomination for someone from the other party.”
What social injustice does Redmond think black Americans are still enduring?
“If the Illinois senator will carry both white and Black voters in November, unlike Democratic candidates from other ethnicities, he will not be able to make promises to African Americans without accountability to keep his promises.”
My that’s credulous. White politicians lie to white voters all the time. Why would a black candidate be any different?
“Instead, he will be under pressure not to let his people down judicially. He will have to reject policies that stand against the Democratic version of racial progress, and he will have to sign into law policies that stand for such progress.”
What current policies stand in the way of blacks?
“They expect social and economic justice policies to find favor with this candidate, for Affirmative Action to be strengthened, for racial profiling and racial inequities in the legal systems to be brought into account and see diminishing statistics, and for ‘equal justice for all’ to be more than words on the halls of justice.”
You know, this way of casting the issue makes it sound as if we have an all-black underclass under the heel of an all-white government.
Last time I checked, there were black judges, black big-city majors, black big-city councilmen, black big-city police chiefs in charge of an integrated police force, &c. Who's oppressing whom?
“An Obama presidency would portray justice in another odd sort of way. Akin to the issue of hope above, his election would be seen as vindication. It would have a self-correcting effect on the errors of America’s history, with its sins of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws.”
We’ve already corrected those errors.
“And ongoing civil injustices.”
“What greater way is there for African Americans in turn to say, ‘We have overcome!”
I can think of a greater way. What about raising your kids in two-parents homes. Helping them with their homework so that they graduate from high school. Things like that.
“What an Obama in the White House would do for African Americans is allow us to feel.”
“We can say, ‘Now this country is going to treat us equally, fairly, justly’.”
“Now”? Redmond is a pretty successful man in his own right to feel so victimized.
Does Barack Obama look like a victim of social injustice to you? Does his wife look like a victim of social injustice to you? If that’s the face of social injustice, it’s pretty lucrative.
“The above thoughts do not make a judgment on whether Christian African Americans should or should not vote for Obama.”
Of course it’s a judgment on Christian black Americans who don’t vote for him. Redmond just implied that any black American who doesn’t vote for Obama is a traitor to the black race.
“The intention of this work is only to offer some reasons that explain why Christian African Americans might vote for Obama in the fall.”
But notice that he didn’t give any Christian reasons. Not a single one.
“It does not address the suggested contradiction between voting for a pro-choice candidate and claiming to be a voter who holds a pro-life position. Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments.”
To begin with, he keeps harping on slavery. But weren’t the abolitionists single-issue politicians? Slavery was just one issue.
And what about the 10 Commandments? Is Obama any better on the other 9 commandments?
By belonging to one of the most liberal Christian denominations, Obama violated the 1st commandment.
By belonging to a church that advocated black liberation theology, Obama violated the 2nd commandment. He idolizes racial identity.
So does Redmond. Redmond idolizes Obama. He talks about Obama the way followers of Father Divine used to take about their leader.
Violation of the 3rd commandment was a crime in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to criminalize blasphemy? No.
Does Obama intend to restore the blue laws? No. So much for the 4th commandment.
BTW, I’m not saying if the 10 commandments should be enacted into law. I’m just measuring Obama by the yardstick which Redmond handed me.
Does Obama support the 5th commandment? No. He supports the welfare state. The welfare state doesn’t honor parents. To the contrary, the welfare state denies parental authority. It supplants parental authority. It usurps the role of the parent.
What about the 6th commandment? Redmond already concedes that Obama’s policies violate this command.
And that’s especially ironic. Redmond harps on racial identity, yet abortion is a form of racial genocide. Redmond harps on racial identity as long as we exclude black babies from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What about the 7th commandment? Adultery was a capital offense in the Mosaic law. Does Obama intend to execute adulterers? I don’t think so.
Again, I’m not saying if he should or shouldn’t. Just seeing if he measures up to Redmond’s yardstick.
What about the 8th commandment? The welfare state is a form of theft. Coercive income redistribution.
What about the 9th commandment? Our current judicial system isn’t designed to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. It’s only concerned with the rights of the accused, even when that involves the suppression of probative evidence.
Does Obama plan to rectify that situation? Not that I heard.
What about the 10th commandment? But the welfare state is predicated on envy. Class warfare. It institutionalizes the sin of covetousness—unless, of course, you’re a rich liberal politician, in which case you shelter your major assets and overtax the middle class.
So Obama flunks every one of the Ten Commandments.
Eric Redmond is a black man first and a Christian second—which is no kind of Christian at all.