Does Barack Obama Want To Make "White Slaves"?

Lately it seems that people have been starting to see a little different side of Obama than they had formerly seen. Instead of the charming personality that was presented to us for the last number of years, we, through Rev. Wright and through comments that Michelle has made and also the most recent gaffe by Obama himself have been seeing a very different picture.

We're beginning to see the emergence of an extremely liberal senator who supports the ideology of the far left. This version of Obama refuses to condemn terrorists. Instead, he seems to sympathize with their cause.

So is the Obama that we don't know yet one that really does believe in affirmative action in a very extreme way? I'm not saying that it's definitely true that he does believe this, but his willingness to trash his own grandmother in an attempt to save himself politically does make me wonder if he might be more than willing to accept affirmative action in an extreme that we've never seen it before.

Perhaps he believes that the original sin of slavery that so many liberation theology talk about has not yet been atoned for; perhaps he believes that in order for America to be redeemed from this sin white folks must get a dose of their own medicine and become slaves.

Again, not saying I think these are true, just speculating. After all, wasn't it Obama himself that quoted his pastor in saying that "white folk's greed runs a world in need"(source here)? Wasn't it Obama himself that stated that many small town folks are bitter and cling to their guns and religion for hope? Barack seems to think that he's got white folks all figured out and I tend to think that it wouldn't be a far cry for him to believe in a sort of retribution where whites become slaves in order to atone for the sins of their forefathers.

Maybe Micheal Savage isn't so far out in his description of Barack Obama after all!

A New Generation: Hope (but not in the government)

Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Such is the slogan of a presidential candidates. It sounds so "hopeful." Apparently, since this candidate's campaign really has taken off, American's are quite hungry for a message of hope and change. Yet this politician has hope in all the wrong places. He's placing it entirely in the fact that he is a politician and can give people what they want for their hope... "free" healthcare, more government support of education, more entitlements.

This type of change may be welcome by many but for those who possess common sense realize that there's "no such thing as a free lunch" even when it is the government that's making the promise. The government can't just create money (without inflation anyway) so the resources have to come from somewhere. The government gets it's money from the people.

So obviously, the people's source of hope is the government and the government's source of resources is the individual taxpayers. There's something wrong with logic that goes in circles like that. The people end up as the resource of their "hope" in the long run anyway.

So why have the middleman government to begin with? Why not just get the big middleman government out of the way and let the people determine their future? America is great because it was founded on a principle of individual people exercising individual freedom. That's commonsense politics.