Comments Posted By Greer
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
This site sounds like it is trying to be so PC sometimes. Political correctness has it's place, but truth has it's place as well. I'm going to be as honest about my thoughts as I possibly can.
From what I read on lots of internet sites, and from most of the people I meet who live in my neighborhood which is filled with many middle class people, and a lot of retirees, I feel that what I'm about to say represents what a lot of those people think as well. I'm hearing a groundswell against Obama's policies and what he is doing or attempting to do to our country.
I'm not getting this racist thing at all. I think that's an excuse that's being used. It's his policies that people talk about, not his race. It's a neat excuse for some like Janine Garafalo who claimed racism of the 'tea partyists', but it's all about policies--not race. Tea partiers are not racists, they're Americans who are expressing their opinions about the direction our country is taking under Obama. Those who speak up at town halls are not racists, nor are they 'mobs', they are people who are concerned about the direction we're being taken by Obama. They're Americans exercising their right of free speech.
America was founded on the concepts of freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, the press, and freedoms of private enterprise, as well as the continuation of those rights through elected representatives who promise to uphold the Constitution of those rights. But we are moving away from some of those freedoms faster than ever could have been imagined. Not only with certain government take overs, and potential take overs (like 'government' health care), but with rumors of potentially trying to limit free expression in media on radio and internet, and even via the UN--the taking away of free speech in the guise of so-called 'hate speech'. Perhaps that will be next in this out of control congress as well, the stopping of our free speech to speak out via the internet or radio.
Another thing brought up in this article I don't understand is blaming so-called 'birthers' for their belief that it is necessary for a man who is called upon to do so, to actually provide a long form birth certificate. Instead Obama chooses to spend millions of dollars with a team of lawyers in order to NOT have to show his long form original birth certificate. What is that about? Anyone could have gotten the type of 'Certificate of Live Birth' shown on the internet for him, even if they were born out of the country, just by someone showing up and registering there was a birth. But the real long form BC showing the hospital, the time of birth, the doctor, the weight of the baby, and a lot of other details is only gotten by actual birth in said hospital--so WHY does he refuse to show that long form birth certificate? Can anyone explain that?
We who demand this of him--show the real long form birth certificate, may not like him, that's very true. But it's not because we are racists, southerners, low income, gun toters, Republican Christians, or anything else. I'm not any of those. It's because we believe in the Constitution, and because we are a country of laws, and that there are reasons for laws, and those laws should be followed for good reason. This man is not above the law. And a precedent should not be set, nor an exception be made for him.
The internet is the only free press we have. And so far, we can still stand up for the right to tell what is, whether it's about his birth certificate, or his background, or his anti-Constitutional policies.
http://www.theobamafile.com/
Comment Posted By Greer On 22.08.2009 @ 16:04
