A note of...optimism?

I've been thinking a lot since Tuesday about what the future is for Conservatism and Constitutionalism. I did not, and would not in retrospect, vote for McCain, so I'm not going to make a judgment on what a McCain administration would mean. I'll try to control my "And McCain/Bush stood for the very same thing/are worse!" comments throughout. That's irrelevant. We must, as always, go with what we've been given.

Barack Obama's nomination is representative of a very monumental time in American history for a number of reasons; some good, but most bad. We have elected one of the most Socialistic Presidents in American history. We have elected someone who is extremely pro-abortion. Someone who is a complete and total globalist. Someone who will undoubtedly rival our last President in spending. I have no doubt that Obama will at some time take advantage of the executive orders*[see note] and laws that Bush has passed through on us and everything will not be the euphoric false hope that was presented. But, believe it or not, I do see a few points of optimism with the nomination.

First; nothing was going to "change" with McCain. I don't mean that in the way that Obama means. Conservatism, I think, died with George W. Bush. McCain was going to bury it. In the past eight - especially four - years, Conservatism has been redefined and anyone who stands for war is considered relatively Conservative. All other points of contention; from abortion to spending, are in comparison irrelevant. That's not good! Even if you support the Iraq war - and I don't - you cannot help but admit that it's essential that a Republican president stand strongly for something other than the Iraq war! Of course, McCain moderated a few of his positions and did his best to seem anti-abortion, anti big spending, etc., but the truth remains: he was not, is not, and will never be, a true Conservative. I honestly believe that had McCain been elected, it would've meant the death of everything most of us stand for.

With a President Obama, we now have the opportunity to take the idea of modern Conservatism back to its roots in Reagan Republicanism and Jeffersonian Conservatism. Pseudo-Conservatism and a Democratic Congress with McCain and Palin is not something that would've inspired people to elect Conservatives in 2010. Now, we can retake the House and the Senate in two years, and retake the Presidency in four much easier.

With Obama in office, we now also have the possibility of increased vigilance, especially from the churches, but also from Republican lawmakers seeking to retain their jobs. Had Barack Obama tried to pass half of the executive orders, the Patriot Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus - there would've been outrage! And rightly so. The so-called "Patriot" Act - under a different name, of course - was introduced to a Republican Congress under Clinton and they rejected it! But when it was introduced under Bush, post 9-11, the hundred-page law passed literally the day after it was introduced. Ron Paul stood alone in the House (with only a few Democrats) and only a few Senators joined him (interestingly enough, Larry Craig was one of them...)

But I'm getting on a Ron Paul rant here. My point is that this newly elected Democratic President represents a chance for us to be more vigilant, more aware. Where Conservatives might have been hesitant to criticize a Republican, they readily condemn a Democrat. We need to retake the Republican party for true Conservatism and we need to redefine what that means. With Barack Obama in office, it will be a whole lot easier than it would've been with John McCain.

I have to get to class now, but I'll probably be back later to edit my crazy ramblings a bit! In the meantime, let me know what you guys think!

*For instance: one executive order passed by Bush would allow him to declare a state of emergency - institute national martial law - for six months without Congressional oversight at all. Those of you who like the idea of Bush being able to do that - what about Obama? The executive orders apply to all Presidents unless they are overturned.

Ron Paul says it better than I can

"Dear friends,

Our journey together has been truly historic. As the final votes are tabulated and the curtain closes on this election, we must take time to reflect on our successes even as we turn our attention to the task before us.

Our campaign has stirred the sleeping giant by showing millions that freedom, peace and prosperity are achievable. We know that these things can only come about through sound money, limited government and a respect for the inherent rights of every individual. We have awakened the political class to the popularity and viability of Liberty. And, most of all, we have awoken within ourselves a spirit of freedom and independence that cannot be suppressed by any ruler, army, or philosophy of subservience and fear.

Yet we must not reflect long. We must press our efforts and lay the groundwork for the future of our movement and our country. The 2010 election cycle is just around the corner. We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.

Ours is the most solemn charge of all: to defend Liberty in this bleak hour lest the very notion that man might best govern himself be scoured from this land and from the conscience of mankind.

In our campaign for liberty, we're just getting started.
Let the Revolution begin."

-Ron Paul

So what does Obama think of the Constitution?

[Emphasis added]
"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

I can't speak for the absolute validity of this clip. The statements were supposedly made in 2001, so I might not be the first person to hear of this. I was just blindsided, though. Not by his criticism of American policies - and I think slavery, really, was what he was referring to - because I don't have a problem with someone criticizing something they seek to fix. What blows me away is how he uses the past tense. How he refers to the foundation of our God-given rights as merely a "political document". It's crazy.

Thoughts?

On the Fox News-Obama fiasco?

I'm not a fan of Obama - at all - so it's hard for me to take up for him. I do think that the Fox News' guest's joke was certainly in poor taste, though, but I'm not really sure how much of a issue it truly should be.

What do you guys think?

Obama implies the government should control how much you eat...what?!

Since I have an anti-McCain post below this, it's only fitting to equally bash... ;) Hat tip to InfoWars.

Source: Google News.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama set his sights on November's general election Saturday as he campaigned in Oregon, where he hopes to declare victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

That's pretty scary, isn't it? He implies that the government should have control over what people eat, and suggests that it should be at the bidding of foreign nations?

It doesn't seem strange anymore that he would allow the whole calling a reporter "sweetie" debacle to become a big deal. Anything to take the attention away, eh?

Cartoons of the week

"Super Tuesday II"

Clinton wins Ohio, Texas; McCain effectively gets GOP nomination.

Well, I'm not surprised with the results...

As for my candidate -- Ron Paul is still hanging on 'til the Convention, and with the situation with delegates there is a slight, tiny, little speck of hope, but Huckabee dropping out doesn't help. Honestly, I think it's sad that Ron Paul has been blacked out my the media and his party because he didn't take the pro-Iraq stance, but the fight for Constitutionalism is far from over - and a lot of it starts at the local level.

But as for the media's darlings - no, Clinton's not going anywhere, she's going to hang on by her bootstraps as long as she possibly can. She's been planning this run for many years, she's not going to go away. I believe firmly she and Obama both are horrible choices, for a variety of reasons which won't be discussed here, as most of you are Republicans and wouldn't vote for either anyway.

As for McCain, I agree with him on the right to life, gun control and find his current, moderated views on taxing slightly better than the Democrats. I disagree with him on just about everything else. And, as most of you know, I'm absolutely not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I haven't liked McCain for a long time - didn't like him in 2000, didn't like him in 2004 (especially when he condemned the Swift Boat Vets,) and I don't like him now.

Right now, the best thing that McCain has going for him in the National race is the presense of Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and (presumably sometime soon) Mike Gravel as liberal third-party candidates. Aside from that, I think his chances are slim to none.

Well, my dear readers, I have a statistics test in about 45 minutes (*groan*) so I leave you with a Youtube video yet again. ;) The sentiments expressed at :54 match mine...