My “35 reasons” post has drawn enormous attention – far more than I’d have ever expected (especially seeing as I wrote it off the top of my head in probably less than 20 minutes).
I was inspired to do this after reading a list I found on Digg about “10 reasons I’m voting for Obama”, which I thought was a very empty and unconvincing list. So I decided to write my own ten things as well, but the list just kept on growing. And look at what I’ve gotten myself into – having to prove my point! But fair enough…
A number of these statement are really just my opinion… that’s why it’s called 35 reasons why I don’t support Obama. And I admit, some of these opinions are reiterated (i.e. #13, 22, 26; and #15, 16, 23). But it doesn’t take 35 reasons – that’s not the point. All I mean to do is express my reasons.
So, due to the inevitable resistance by some Obama supporters, and those who want references or at least some argument to support it, I give you the following.
Please understand, I’m only trying to pass-on what I’ve learned – so if you don’t want to believe me then please, do your own research (look at my references). If you still think I’m wrong, please prove me wrong – and I will change my opinion. Remember… change is good!
[I intend to amend this list if or as I see fit.]
- He has no viable plan for reducing the debt.
Obama is running a ‘silver bullet’ campaign – whereby he is claiming that he has the answers, that he knows how to, and is going to be able to fix things. At least he sometimes admits that it’s not going to be easy – because that is very true.
But some Americans are quick and easy to accept the idea that increased spending on government programs is the way to change or fix things (i.e. health care).
The truth is, the federal government is what causes these problems in the first place. The government is not good at running the country, and this isn’t even its purpose anyways.
The point is: America is in a recession (for several reasons, including massive government spending) and it’s getting worse. Huge spending must end, or America is going to fall into a depression (though it may even too late anyways).
Obama has massive spending plans. And remember, ending the occupation of Iraq will not bring any money back; and what that would save is not enough. America is over $9 trillion dollars in debt, and if you’ve ever been in debt you should damn-well know what that means – no money.
Reducing and eventually eliminating the debt will be an American priority for probably decades, but Barack Obama’s promises would only send us deeper in the hole. (And a North American Union is not an acceptable solution!) References: 1, 2, 3, 4
- His policies will require bigger government, more spending, and debt.
Reason #1 – reiterated. Obama’s promises = more spending, which = more big government programs, more debt, more inflation, more recession, which = more poverty, more problems, more vulnerability!
Big government doesn’t work. References: 1
- He does not oppose the IRS or the income tax.
Believe it or not, American’s don’t like to pay taxes. It doesn’t mean that taxes are wrong altogether, but if you don’t want to fund an overspending government – you shouldn’t have to! What the IRS does is take that money from us, whether we like it or not, and if you don’t comply – the steal your property and your resources.
The income tax didn’t even exist until 1913, when the 16th Amendment was ratified (improperly). The constitutionality of this Amendment has been challenged by numerous arguments. It is unnecessary and destructive to society and the liberty of the people.
Perhaps the best reason why this tax is a bad thing is simply the fact that the government doesn’t own you – high taxes and income taxes basically imply that they do, and they take it from you without your consent. References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- He will not withdraw troops from the 130 countries our military occupies (over 250,000 military personnel).
Establishing military bases around the world is imperialist, and dangerous. Why do you think ‘terrorists’ hate America?
America could save a lot of money by bringing the troops home, which will also help to protect America while not invigorating anti-Americanism around the world. It is senseless to spend billions to enforce the borders of a country, risking the lives of our troops on the other side of the world, when we have our own borders problem to take care of. Reference: 1, 2, 3
- He will not end the destructive war on drugs.
Since 2006, about 700,000 people are arrested annually in America due to the war on drugs – and that’s only for marijuana offenses. The numbers increase every year. The prison industrial complex grows from it. America imprisons more people per capita than any other country in the world. By now, anyone who does not oppose the drug war has obviously not done their research. Politicians know it’s immoral, but can’t defeat the special interests.
Obama admits to being a hard-drug user in the past. He is still a cigarette smoker and drinks alcohol. Early in the presidential campaign, he kinda said that he would be for decriminalization of marijuana. But then when he became more popular he changed his mind.
I believe that anyone who is too coward or in the service of special interests to admit the failure of this war against Americans, does not have the right morality or sense to be a good president. References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- His campaign is primarily funded by Fortune 500 corporations.
JP Morgan Chase & Co – $282,387
Goldman Sachs – $474,428
Lehman Brothers – $274,147
UBS (ag) – $298,180
Citigroup – $247,436
Google – $192,808
Time Warner – $190,091
- His campaign is funded by the globalist Council On Foreign Relations, of which his wife is a member.
See above: these (or at least most of them) rank in the the Fortune 500 and are members of the CFR.
Obama is not an official member of the CFR, but he seems to get all the same benefits. His wife is an official member of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which is part of the Council on Foreign Relations. Reference: 1, 2
- He will not protect the borders or America’s sovereignty.
Because of his close ties with the CFR and having made no opposition (that I know of) against the NAU – I’m pretty damn sure that he doesn’t truly commit himself to real border protection (though he may choose to invest in fences?).
The NAU – for those of you who don’t know yet – has been one of Bush’s secret plans that’s only just hit the mainstream media (a bit). The effect is to open the US borders with Canada and Mexico. This would effectively be the end of the United States and its Constitution – without your consent. I urge your to learn about the NAU. References: 1, 2
- He has not opposed the NAFTA super highway (being built to form a North American Union).
Obama is yet to speak out against the highway, and I doubt he will.
- He reminds me of the Bushes and Clintons!
That’s my opinion. And isn’t it odd that he also shares ancestors with both the Bush and Cheney families?
- He feeds on people’s desire for change by making promises that can’t be fulfilled.
It’s misleading, and not a fair thing to do to the millions of Americans who don’t know the facts.
To reiterate the first point on the list: The financial issue is not a matter of opinion, and its implications simply cannot be avoided – America doesn’t have the money to do all the things he promises. Trying to create and expand federal programs, as Obama intends to do, will only drive the country further into debt.
Either he’ll say whatever it takes to get support, or he believes that the funding is going to come out of thin air (i.e. the Federal Reserve). Reference: 1
- Because race is not an issue.
An old friend recently told me that she wanted Obama to win because he is black, and because America needs a black man to be president. I replied, “I would vote for a black woman, if she was the right person for the job.” I can’t believe that people think that race is important in an election, or that it determines good moral judgment or political philosophy. This argument shouldn’t even exist – it’s racist.
- He is not truly committed to the principals of the Constitution (despite what he claims).
It’s bizarre that Obama actually once taught constitutional law, yet supports programs and policies that deviate far from what the Founders would have accepted as a constitutional, small government.
If Obama vowed to uphold the Constitution and constitutional principals, he would not be affiliated with an anti-sovereignty organization that aims to produce one-world government. If he were constitutional, he whould protest the growth of government and its growing control over the people, their lives, and their liberties.
Obama’s rhetoric is full of holes – he says he is for liberty and freedom, yet he does not oppose the greatest threats against it.
- He is only a junior member of the Senate; he lacks experience (comparatively).
After a mere four years of experience in congress, does Obama really have what it takes to lead the country? I think not!
I’m far from the first to share this accusation. But I treat this as a matter of relativity. Obama’s legislative record hardly compares to a senior member of congress such as Ron Paul, who has that he has sponsored and cosponsored 1689 bills (if I counted them right, see reference 1) in his 10 terms as a Representative.
People regularly defend him on the basis of the number of bills he has sponsored and cosponsored. But the fact that Obama has sponsored a lot of bills (mostly state-level) doesn’t really prove anything unless you are familiar with them. The number is practically irrelevant. Real experience is based on years of experience, being re-elected, voting and having a consistent, predictable record based on certain principals.
I have to wonder… has Obama been trying to hastily build-up a record and reputation to help support his immediate run for president? And how many of his bills can actually demonstrate his ability to act prudently on the executive level? References: 1, 2
- He pleases crowds with empty rhetoric and false promises.
This of course is just my opinion. But when I listen to him, I do hear a lot of empty rhetoric without substance, with no real evidence or arguments. He is really good at getting people to cheer him on – he’s inspiring – but he’s not convincing about his stance on the issues and how he’s going to fix them. He’s a crowd pleaser, and the things he promises to do are not really achievable. References: 1, 2
- Because “yes we can” and “change” don’t really mean anything.
Aka. “empty rhetoric”. I see his supporters waving the signs that say ‘change’, the same buzzword is posted on big banners in the background, etc., and I really wonder if anyone else notices the subliminal advertising.
I wonder, can his supporters even make a good argument or reiterate an Obama speech, and be able to explain what his “change” actually is or would be? “Yes we can…” what? Are people really so empty-minded that they accept this as real political discourse?
I know Obama fans have their heart in the right place, but I think some of them have their head in the clouds.
- He aims to spend $845 billion in his global poverty act.
I know it would be a great thing to restore a good image of America in the world. But the best way to do that is to leave the world alone and stop being the world police.
The global poverty act aims to give-away our tax dollars to other countries. However gracious and good-willed that may seem, it makes no sense when there are millions of people living in poverty here at home.
Do we seriously believe that the best way we can help the world and become ‘good’ in others eyes is to give them our money? If anything, this give-away – when we’re in debt – would make us look even stupider to the world (even more than when Bush was ‘re-elected’).
No amount of money will restore the devastation the American government has caused though its current interventionist foreign policy. The best way to help is to let people live their own lives and not get in their way! The American government is not the answer to the world’s problems. In fact, it’s actually the cause of many of the problems in the first place.
And besides, I’m pretty damn sure that most Americans would rather have their tax dollars spent on America!
- He wants to run a socialist health care system.
The true reason why there are problems with health care in America: the federal government regulates it and interferes with the free market. It is terribly ironic that the people think that government control will fix the problem, when its government interference has caused the problem in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong – I believe it would be a wonderful thing if all Americans could get health care – but the government cannot possibly make it free. One way or another, you’re paying for it through your taxes – whether you like it or not.
And what makes people think the government could (and continue to) do a good job managing it, when they seem to screw everything else up?
The best way to make health care more affordable (or even free) is to keep the government out of it – and let a truly free market, and competition, be able to afford to open more small hospitals and drive prices down.
Once again: It’s government involvement in the medical industrial complex that has made health care so un-affordable in the first place. What’s needed is a free market to allow competition. Socialism always fails – freedom really works. References: 1, 2, 3
- He has little experience in economics, yet claims to know how to fix the economy – which isn’t a president’s job anyways.
A free market is one where the government doesn’t control it, hence, America is not a truly free market. The government is constantly interfering with the economy, and people seem to actually believe that that’s is what it’s supposed to do – and that it’s up to the president to fix it when it’s broken.
It’s not up to the president to ‘manage’ the economy, simple as that. But someone who understands economics would try to do the right thing as president – prevent the government from interfering. References: 1, 2
- He does not adhere strictly to free-market principals.
The constitution does not give the government the right to ‘manage’ or interfere with our markets and the economy. Obama proposes to use the government to interfere with the free-market (i.e. ‘universal health care’). Reference: 1
- He claims to be environmentally friendly, yet co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007.
- Because I am for liberty and freedom (his policies aren’t).
It’s true… freedom really works! I don’t think there has ever been a greater value in human history than to be free. It’s a universal and natural aspiration, and it’s what America was founded upon.
There’s only one candidate I’ve ever known who bases his philosophy on this principal, as was instituted by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Obama is not that candidate! Reference: 1
- He is trendy, a fad, and popularized without substance (I pay attention to the details).
I am so ashamed of people who treat their elections like they are voting on American Idol. Do your research – this is too important.
- Because the majority of active-duty Armed Service members don’t prefer him.
First, Obama said that he would get troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008. Then, he said it would be after two or three years.
I highly doubt that he would ever get all the troops out. And what about Afghanistan? And what about the other many troops around the world?
There is only one candidate who will get them all out as soon as possible and makes it a top priority… And that’s who the troops have supported with their donations – doubling the amount of all the other candidate’s donations from the Armed Services combined. That person is not Barack Obama. References: 1, 2, 3
- He does not oppose a military attack or sanctions on Iran.
- He does not promote the value of freedom and liberty.
Like I said earlier.
- He is not against partial-birth abortions.
He voted against banning partial-birth abortions. Reference: 1
- He will continue No Child Left Behind and the failed Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind is a complete joke and a failure. I think it should be scrapped, first of all because it’s not even the federal government’s responsibility to educate the people. I think educating is supremely important to society, and that’s why I oppose the DOE.
- He does not oppose the PATRIOT Act.
He voted for it the first time. Then he realized that it infringed on a number of parts of the constitution, but said it would be okay if it was changed a bit. Then he voted to reauthorize it anyways, and he does not wish to get rid of it.
The purpose of this act was not to stop terrorism, and even if it was – it wouldn’t work. All this has done is allow the government to ignore the 4th Amendment and spy on anyone they like as well as infringe on our other rights granted in the constitution. It should be called the Fascist Act. References: 1, 2, 3
- He does not oppose the REAL ID Act.
A national ID – like Hitler did – is completely unnecessary and against the principals of a free society. Obama voted for it.
Like the PATRIOT Act, this is just a way for the government to have more control over the people – based on the false pretense of terrorism in America. This card is supposed to replace your drivers license with a chipped card that may contain any information about you that the government may want: your history, fingerprints, retinal signatures, anything they want. You might as well be branded as property of the US government. Not having the card will eventually become a crime. References: 1, 2, 3
- He does not oppose the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve, which is neither federal, nor a reserve, is the sole problem of inflation in America. They print money and led it to the government at interest. It is basically legalized counterfeiting, used to support huge government spending while making the private bankers who own it extremely powerful.
A central bank was always opposed throughout American history until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson authorized it (and regretted it later on). Abolishing the Federal Reserve is one of the most important steps to establishing good monetary policy, and Obama has nothing to say about it. References: 1, 2, 3
- He promotes a “national service plan”.
Americans can respect and serve their nation without a federally imposed service plan.
His plan includes measures to give people some money for education if they serve 100 hours of ‘national service’, to force high school kids to do community service, to increase the engagement of retired Americans in voluntary service, and expensive plans such as increasing the size the Peace Corps. And that’s just the beginning.
- He has won his popularity with money and rhetoric instead of good political discourse.
My opinions, reiterated.
- He is a favorite candidate for many special interests and major corporations.
He claims to be against special interest groups, yet he takes major contributions from them. See above: top contributors are major corporations.
- He is not as good a candidate as Ron Paul (or Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel).
In my opinion…
Barack Obama is probably the most leftist liberal candidate there is. I used to be supportive of liberals, years ago, before I understood what that truly meant. Now I realize that deviating from the rule of the Constitution and promoting big spending and big federal government is just the opposite of what America really needs.
I was once entirely for Democrats and against Republicans. Now I don’t respect either, and I don’t use party affiliation as a litmus test. Freedom is what really matters. Small, constitutional government is the only was to truly preserve freedom. That’s why I am for Ron Paul, and would vote for no one else.