thank you for your space

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and “racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, “not the color of their skin.” The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.

I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

I am not supporting any candidate, but am just giving one example to not take up time.

One example:

McCain said that Hillary wants to waive a white flag. You say this is a lie because there is no official army to surrender to. Are you seriously saying that because we aren’t fighting a government recognized army that we can’t “technically” surrender? And that makes one of our candidates a liar?

Some of the facts you pointed out are obviously correct, but looking for every technicality is a waste of time. You will find thousands more if you want. We should be look at flat out lies. Like when a candidate says that he/she is against free trade agreements yet vote for those same agreements and write about the value of free trade in his/her own books.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m going for a specific candidate, because I’m not, but just making a few examples.

To all who left a comment, thank you for your time and voicing your opinions.

Asha,

I’m glad that in your search for unbiased coverage of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election you found my posts. I have strived to be essentially neutral overall, though I believe that every writer has some degree of bias in such a critical matter.

I also find it interesting that our Canadian neighbors are interested in the results as much as most Americans are. It just reinforces my thought that this is possibly the most important election facing America in perhaps several decades.

While I agree that several of the questions were asked of Senator Clinton first, I do not believe that is an impediment. It allows Clinton to set the tone and pace of the following questions and the debate in general. It allows her to stand out with her response, and since both the Democratic candidates are essentially promoting the same political positions it allows the conclusion that your 12 year old had to be made.

I have followed this election since 2006, and politics on and off for my entire life. As such I am very familiar with comments and campaign promises made by all the candidates since the start. I often go over the transcripts of debates when they become available, as well as speeches and letters. If you review my many posts on this election you will find that I provide links to ever resource, post, and article that I use. This is all meant to do one thing, allow you my reader to form your own opinion.

And I agree that politics in America is a very polished and choreographed process these days. It seems even worse when the fact of the candidates positions are so similar is added. But because of this it is the minor points that give the most incite at times. I believe that my conclusion in the post highlights the major difference of the candidates. That is the real factor that I believe will determine their ultimate electability and performance as President.

But I offer only my opinion, it is for the American citizens to vote their belief and pick whoever is best for the nation collectively.

Vigilante,

While I find your response humorous I must give Senator Clinton a bit more credit. I have stated that I would not vote for her, and that I have not made a choice between Senators McCain and Obama. Given that, to be fair, Senator Clinton did try to take a strong stance on her positions and provide more substance for her positions. Though I find that she has flipped her positions and voting based on popularity, and that she has engaged in a “win at all cost” campaign.

Notelling,
I respect your wish to have a woman as President. I see nothing wrong with that, if the woman is worthy of the position. I do not see Senator Clinton as being that woman. As I have stated, and her actions as well as those of her campaign have shown, she does not evoke the best interest of the nation. That is my interpretation. But perhaps she can inspire, or open the door for a more qualified and substantial woman to become the President in 2012 or some time soon after.

I am glad that you found my last paragraph to be a fair and accurate in expressing what type of President either of the Democratic hopefuls could be. But even for those that disagree with my opinion, the ultimate choice must be made in the votes.

No matter what you may believe I implore that every America that can vote should. It is only then that I believe the best possible choice for America will be found, and will lead America on the best path. The questions of race, gender, religion are all factors in any decision, but cannot be the only factor. The best overall candidate must be the choice of America, as you believe it to be.

MahoganyShotgun,

I agree with many of your points. Several of them are mentioned to a degree in my post. And I believe we both agree that it is because of those observations that not only did Clinton lose the debate, but has shown herself to be the least desirable candidate for President.

I always come back to the thought that if a candidate is willing to demand they be heard unfairly, shows a willingness to violate rules and agreements made in the past (the issue of Super Delegates and the Michigan and Florida Primaries), and is willing to employ – directly and indirectly – tactics that are universally seen as morally corrupt (the inference of Islamic terrorism and the use of race as a negative) then what is that candidate going to do with the power of the highest office of the most powerful nation in the world?

May 16, 2005
For Immediate Release
For More Information, Contact: Bryan Rudnick 561-499-3201

CLINTON SUPPORTS FARRAKHAN MARCH - ADL DITHERS

Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, charged that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has a double standard - one for conservatives and another for prominent liberals.

“When it comes to attacking conservatives - Pat Robertson, Mel Gibson - the ADL leaps to the fray,” Feder noted. Last year, ADL National Director Abraham Foxman suggested that Gibson’s film, “The Passion Of The Christ,” could unleash a wave of anti-Semitism.

But when ex-president Bill Clinton endorses an upcoming march by America’s most notorious anti-Semite, the ADL is circumspect to the point of timidity.

In an interview with the Amsterdam News (posted on its website on May 4th ), Clinton said Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s October 14-15 rally in Washington DC was “a very positive idea.” Moreover, the ex-president asserted that Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March was about “standing up for the dignity of the family and asking African American men and fathers to be more responsible.”

Said Feder, “Yes, and it was also about black racism, virulent anti-Americanism and unvarnished Jew hatred.” Farrakhan has called Jews “leeches,” and “wicked deceivers of the American people,” who exploit blacks and manipulate US foreign policy for their own sinister ends.

“The Clinton interview has been out for almost two weeks, and the ADL has yet to officially comment,” Feder added.

A call to the ADL press office disclosed that the organization has written a letter to Clinton (presumably for a clarification) and is awaiting a response before it takes an official position.

“The ADL is in a quandary,” Feder explained. “If it says nothing, its credibility will be destroyed. On the other hand, it doesn’t want to attack a liberal icon that many of its members adore. Its letter to Clinton is buying time while it decides what, if anything, to do.”

Increasingly, the Anti-Defamation League is seen by Middle America as a liberal organization pushing a liberal agenda, in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

Feder concluded, “I guess Foxman and company are too busy attacking Christianity and looking for anti-Semites under conservative beds to respond to a liberal ex-president’s endorsement of the most vile and dangerous hate-monger in America.”

Obama doesn’t belabor the point on issues or trivia. He’s smart enough to move on. If he agrees, he agrees. If he doesn’t agree, then he will level-headedly disagree and state his point of view.

Hillary was very DISRESPECTFUL to the moderators and to the debate due process, which is why the moderators practically had to become aggressive in cutting her off. Because Hillary was disrespectful of the process, she illicited an unfavorableness from the moderators. Hillary is not someone I would send on a PEACE mission or agenda… she would do nothing short of riling opposition with her bullying style.

Seeing Hillary’s debate STYLE, is a window into her personable relations and communication skills with others, which is very poor. She has shown her capacity to make enemies out of friends.

Obama’s personable relations and communication skills enables COOPERATION and diffuses the unnecessary. I would definitely send him to Geneva for peace talks or to the United Nations and trust his ability to carry himself in a progress-full manner. I can trust that he’s not a hot-head, not even when being attacked below the belt. He is so steady, that just that alone frustrates the Clintons.

Hillary says she’s tried, yet the young so-called “inexperienced” Barack can get right under her skin like nothing just by being himself. Hillary once asked, “Who would you rather see answering the red phone at 3:am in the morning?” I would prefer it be Barack Obama, not the multiple personalities of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary says she’s a fighter, yet she has proven that she doesn’t make smart choices about what fights to engage in and what fight tactics would yield the most favorable results. Her campaign strategy has also shown this, that she doesn’t “pick” smart fights.

People are diverse in this great nation.

We are not all book smart, who can sit down and analyze congressional service records. We do not all have access to the internet to research various articles and substantive documents and have the time to analyze EACH of them. We are diverse in our educational and critical thinking backgrounds. Most of us do not STORE in our long term memory, a myriad of accomplishments of the candidates. We are also diverse in our INTUITIVE awareness and experience. There is a reason why potential employers don’t just review your resume and call your references –but want to also call you in for an interview to get that “first impression” and observe you as you answer questions –FEEL you. You can have an impressive resume, but if your personality stinks, you won’t get the job.

For many Americans, OBSERVATIONS during the campaigning process sample quite well the experience, the leadership, the personality, the integrity, the communication skills, the overall ideology, etc. that they perceive favorable in a candidate. The campaign reflects the candidate.

People are drawn to Obama, because of his experience organizing the local “mom & pop” support for a common goal across the country toward his election; his calm and strategic leadership especially against attacks; his overall welcoming personality; his open-book integrity of disclosing earmarks, tax returns, his past as written in his books, his public service record; his energizing communication skills that keep the “troops” encouraged; and his overall ideology of inclusion of who so ever will come together to work for change –let them come, because yes WE can make the changes WE are seeking.

I like Hillary, but I wish she were less calculating. Her persona is very cynical. I don’t like the my way or the highway—- I’ll fight you over everything and nothing —and I’ll throw dirt in your face, approach.

I think she’ll do anything to win. The Iraq vote was a calculated move and it was wrong, just like how she has made so many calculated errors during this campaign.
Again, I like Hillary. I’m a woman and I want to see a woman become President. But, it’s not just about that. I wish she had demonstrated to us that she had some higher principles. I wish she wasn’t so calculating.

(A) Her make-up
(b) Her hair

were much improved.

My first debate that I watched was the Austin, Texas debate and my 12 year old daughter commented before I did on the fact that Hilary Clinton was being asked the questions first which gave Barack Obama a chance- in many of his answers- to simply agree with her. It is true that in that debate that she was ASKED all but one question first. (I am not counting the ability to give a closing statement)

I highly encourage Americans to read the actual transcripts of these debates - the words, without the emotions because as an impartial observer of the last two debates I see that Barack Obama is a great orator, a media dream candidate but has very little substance to offer.

My 12 year old again commented that he had very little original thoughts to add and piggybacked on Clinton’s answers.

Could be wrong - just got to say that I feel like I am watching a Hollywood movie rather than an election and that Americans really need to think that they are voting for someone to represent them internally and externally for the next 4 years.

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems.

Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote. Please forward this to everyone you can think of as soon as you can.