Yes, we did. But we're not ready to throw confetti

The people of America have spoken. And who among us could not feel pride at this transcendental moment in American history when we, the people, elected the first African-American president of the United States of America? To not acknowledge and savor this historic moment in a nation that once considered blacks property would be churlish. Indeed, Mr. Obama is to be sincerely congratulated. It is a historic accomplishment for him to become the first African-American to be elected to the highest office in the land, and we can understand the nation's pride and jubilance in this achievement. Many of us desired to vote for Mr. Obama not just because of its historical significance but because, to be sure, on several other levels he is qualified for the office of the presidency. But we couldn’t. And, instead, many of us find ourselves in a grieving process of sorts, not because of Mr. Obama's victory but because his advent represents a potential threat to what many in this country revere as core foundational principles that have been the cornerstones upon which our great nation has been built, and upon which we have thrived to become, certainly, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on this planet.

To be sure, the institution of marriage as it has been defined for millennia as the union of one man and one woman is no longer secure with Mr. Obama at the helm. Neither is the sanctity of human life, if his voting record in favor of abortion on demand at any stage within a woman’s nine-month pregnancy is to be viewed as a precursor of his intent for our laws that govern abortion and the rights of the unborn.

We have no interest in deciphering Mr. Obama's "nuances" such as when he states his belief that marriage is "between a man and a woman," and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage," while, at the same time, reiterating his clear opposition to Proposition 8 — the California ballot measure which has, at least for now, restored to the state of California the traditional definition of marriage that was usurped by a renegade State Supreme Court to include same-sex couples. Let's just look at the facts. Mr. Obama has indicated clearly to homosexual lobby groups his unequivocal determination to invoke a complete repeal of both sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, essentially, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. As a constitutional scholar, Mr. Obama knows exactly what this would mean to those, now, 30 states that have voted to amend their state constitutions to protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. A repeal of the DOMA would likely mean renewed challenges to the amended constitutions of these states by homosexual lobby groups, who are seemingly able to bend the ears of our state judiciaries with the kind of compassionate ill-logic and false arguments that demand legislation from the bench. This is precisely what is happening now in California, even after a clear and decisive victory — for the second time — to secure the traditional definition of marriage in state law, according to the democratic will of the people. Homosexuals typically argue that such legislative intervention is authorized by and entrenched in our constitution to protect minorities from the "tyrannical will of the majority." But isn't that the very definition of tyranny?

Further, Mr. Obama is being hypocritical — not just pandering to special interest groups — when he stands before a black church on Father's Day admonishing black fathers for absconding their financial and parental responsibilities to children they have fathered, and extolling the virtues of intact families and the critical role that fathers play in maintaining the foundation of the family while, at the same time, giving support to lesbians that want to adopt children and create families, which by their very nature remove a father from the equation.

Furthermore, Mr. Obama seems committed to becoming the most liberal pro-abortion president ever voted into office. Unbelievably, he is the only elected official on record for supporting infanticide for babies that have survived botched abortions. Therefore, can anyone doubt that, when the time comes, he will appoint to the United States Supreme Court liberal judges who reflect his ideology? More and more Americans are learning that the real Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of sweeping pro-abortion policy changes, which, if implemented, could drastically increase the numbers of abortions performed, even on under-age girls without having to secure the consent of at least one of their parents. One component of the Obama abortion agenda, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA, S. 1173), is coming under increased scrutiny from many quarters. The FOCA is the most sweeping piece of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in Congress. It is a bill that would establish a federal “abortion right” broader than Roe v. Wade and, in the words of the National Organization for Women, “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” In fact, in his too-little-noted speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Mr. Obama said, “The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do.”

Without a doubt, Mr. Obama continually demonstrates that he suffers from the same malady as so many others whom we look up to as the "intellectual elite" — he's educated beyond his intelligence yet still fundamentally lacking in wisdom. And, indeed, we cannot support a man who has declared that, should one of his daughters make a mistake and come up pregnant, he would not want to see her "punished with a baby." Without any euphemistic substitutions such as "fetus" or "tissue blob," Mr. Obama has provided further evidence of his hypocrisy — that his knowledge of what is being killed en utero through abortion is not "above his pay grade."

When all is said and done, our hope is not in a political process...or a man, for that matter. Our hope remains in God and we cannot forget that. He hasn't made a mistake. Nor has He lost control of things. And maybe His ways are, indeed, higher than ours and, eventually, all things will work together for our good. Until such time, however, unlike what Mr. Obama proclaimed in his now historic acceptance speech as our newly-minted president-elect, the issues that cause us concern cannot be swept under the carpet or just labeled as some kind of "partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long". The issues we raise are substantive and go well beyond partisanship as the very continuation of our society depends on the respect for life and the recognition that such life is best and ideally raised in a traditional family structure consisting of a loving mother and father. Mr. Obama, as our new president-elect, has now stated for the record:

“... Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House— a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, ‘We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.’ And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn— I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too...”

Magnanimity aside — if only because Mr. Obama's continuous rhetoric has, by far, trumped his performance record — we can only hope so. And we can only hope also that, because he has witnessed the power of our democracy, he will determine to uphold and act upon the clear and decisive will of the people demonstrated in California, Arizona, Florida, and 27 other states, so far, regarding the definition of marriage. Proposition 8, Proposition 102, and Proposition 2 have won by 52.5%, 56.5%, and 62% majorities respectively through the same democratic process that has now elected Mr. Obama president. Yet, even now, there are many within the media that are continuing to push their own agenda and that of homosexual lobby groups by postulating a seeming "paradox" of an election that has given the presidency of the United States to the first African-American in our history yet has failed to give "equal rights" to homosexuals. But the evidence is clear. The electorate is awakening to the marketing ruse that is being sold to them regarding homosexuality. They are awakening to the "nuanced" positions, which deceptively seek to equate clearly inherent human characteristics such as race and gender with homosexual proclivities, and to enshrine homosexual preferences as "inalienable rights" endowed by our Creator.

Mr. Obama may have succeeded in convincing a majority of Americans that a vote for him was in their best interest. But what is now clear is that he was incapable of convincing even his biggest supporters — the African-American community — to vote their interests, only as he defined them. Analysts report that the marriage measures would not have passed without black voter support, and that 70% of black voters supported the ballot initiatives on marriage. Without a doubt, this is an indication that, while many citizens voted to support a black candidate in this historic election, they did not support his liberal policy positions. Americans are defined by more than their paychecks, and this is a fact that Mr. Obama will come to appreciate more and more in the days ahead.

Finally, our nation — and, indeed, the world — has an answer to the rhetorical question of old, "Is America able to elect a Black president?" Well, yes, we can. Finally, we also have an answer regarding whether we would ever retire and move beyond the Jesse Jackson's and the Al Sharpton's as the face of leadership in the African-American community, and the incessant arguing about race relations. Well, obviously, we can. And we should. By virtue of the Afro-Caribbean roots in our diverse family tree at The Real Proposal magazine, we have an enormous interest in seeing the first legitimate African-American contender succeed in the highest office of the land...just not his liberal agenda. And were these issues not sufficient for pause, there are still yet unanswered questions regarding Mr. Obama's background and past affiliations. So, pardon us, if we're not quite ready to throw the inauguration confetti.





RELATED VIDEO: Obama Citizenship: (Ep. 6: October Surprise) You Tube.com, October 10, 2008
In "October Surprise", Molotov Mitchell interviews the plaintiff, Philip Berg, in a stunning federal case against Barack Obama. The case is nothing short of electrifying, but the mainstream media is doing its best to keep Americans in the dark. Philip Berg is a Pennsylvania attorney who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, the former Democratic Chairman of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, an 8-year member of the state democratic committee, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and a past candidate for both governor of Pennsylvania and United States Senator.


RELATED ARTICLE: Lawyer challenges Obama Citizenship? Truth or Fiction.com


RELATED ARTICLE: Efforts to Sell Obama to Pro-Life Americans Collide With His Support for Sweeping Pro-abortion Policy Changes National Right to Life Committee, By Douglas Johnson-Legislative Director, October 7, 2008


RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s Communist Mentor Accuracy in Media, By Cliff Kincaid, February 18, 2008