Ready? Sitting down? Lean over now. The real reason is...
Weird, huh — that he thinks folks hate Obama because Obama's half-white?
I jest, of course. Obama long ago threw his white mother under the bus for the more expedient route of embracing his father's skin-color as if that were the only component in his makeup.
Now, looking at Mr.
But that isn't why I opposed him. I opposed him for his policies, his foreign-policy cluelessness, his big-government liberalism, his embrace of abortion, his perjury, his abuse of office and of the public trust. He could have been a humble, lovable, morally-pure Christian, and I'd still have opposed him roundly.
And Obama? In perfect candor, I have virtually no feelings about him, personally, whatever. He's a cold fish, a cypher. His arrogance is irksome, particularly when coupled with such wild incompetence. But he doesn't have that curled-lip, smirky smarmy smugness that Clinton had.
Why do I oppose him? As I've spelled out at length, because he is ideologically radically liberal. His idea of America is far-removed from the brilliant concept of the fathers. In fact, he honestly doesn't even seem to have a clue as to what that concept even is. For every problem, his sole instinct is to reach for a big-government solution; and if he has to take my freedoms and my money, wellsir, that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.
Skin-color has absolutely nothing to do with it. As I've said, I'm glad that a (half-)black man was elected. I'm just sorry it was this (half-)black man.
I don't think so. In fact, I'm certain of it.
UPDATE: brother Mark La Roi, in reminding us that Clinton was dubbed "the first black president," reminds me of a story I meant to tell in the post. So I'll append!
I preached a sermon once (long story) that included an arguably critical comment about then-president Clinton. (It fit; it was on the line, but it fit.) A visitor was deeply offended, I later learned. Why? Because I was picking on minorities.