I am thoroughly delighted that Hillary Clinton failed to achieve not only the top spot in the Iowa caucus but failed to even take second place. However, the upset to the “inevitable” candidate’s lust to return to the White House brings to the forefront a not much better alternative: Barack Obama.

Admittedly, viewed from afar, the fact that an African American won Iowa is a positive statement concerning race relations in the U.S. In a state where, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 2.5 percent are African American and a whopping 94.6 percent are white, Obama’s victory is a true testament to the progress America has made concerning race relations.

However, as Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out it is what is inside that matters and not the color of one’s skin. And what is inside Obama is just as bad as what is inside the others he contends against to win his party’s nomination. If you peel away his friendly speeches, his naive belief that he can unite our nation into harmony, and his polished and sunny exterior, you will find typical liberal fare: higher taxes, a firm belief in dependency to bloated government, a firm disbelief in individual accountability and responsibility, and weakness in the face of terrorism.

First, let us consider taxes. Obama said of the Bush tax cuts that “people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less.” He goes on to say that there is a broader issue at work: “Are we willing to make the investments in genuine equal opportunity in this country? People aren’t looking for charity. We talk about welfare and we talk about poverty, but what people really want is fairness. They want people paying their fair share of taxes. They want that money allocated fairly.”

“Allocated fairly.” In other words, redistribution of wealth. Obama may claim that people aren’t looking for charity but they are. That is why we do talk about welfare and poverty; the former traps so many into a cycle of the latter. Obama went on to say that “one of the distressing things about Katrina was the fact that we have not made systematic investments. And the only way we’re going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have the money actually make a contribution.” More class envy mantra.

Invisible to Obama are the jobs created by the wealthy; invisible to Obama are how many people make it up the social ladder thanks to the genius of people many vilify as greedy CEOs. Without Bill Gates there would be no Microsoft. Do you know how many people Microsoft employs? Roughly 80,000. According to their website, in addition to their salary, employees at Microsoft receive the following benefits: health care, 401K, stock purchase program, adoption assistance, financial planning and tuition assistance, among other benefits.

The difference between Microsoft and the federal government? Microsoft provides a salary and benefits in return for services that benefits the companies paying customers and government provides its handouts and benefits in return for nothing by stealing from those who work. Next time you think of the “evil rich” maybe you should ponder the “evil politicians” too.

Further, According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama voted “no” to repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, on raising the estate tax exemption to $5 million, on making estate tax cuts permanent, on the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends, and on permanently repealing the death tax. Citizens against Government Waste rate Obama at 13 percent, terming him “hostile” to the interests of taxpayers.

These scandalous votes alone are enough evidence to illustrate the second point, his firm belief in big government, but let us examine the specific example of government health care.

Obama wants nanny state health care much like Europeans have (you know, the kind where if you need an MRI you get put on a waiting list). He favors this for everyone in the U.S., no exceptions. His plan is to set up a program much like the ones congressmen themselves have and that anybody who wants to can buy into it. Those that cannot afford it will be subsidized by taxpayers. You can see his reasoning in his response to a question in a 2007 Democratic primary debate.

When asked, “why is it so difficult to make health care accessible to everyone in the world’s richest country?” Obama replied that: “It shouldn’t be. And it’s wrong. You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn’t thinking about how to get well, she wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It’s objectionable. That’s why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage.”

It is a sad fact of life; bad things happen and people die. No amount of government legislation will change that. The problem with Obama’s plan is that it ignores the fact that all people already can get coverage; government intrusion is not needed. It’s very simple, too. All you have to do is get a job or be married to somebody with a job. And if you have a job with a company that does not offer insurance, then perhaps you should consider purchasing an individual policy.

If Obama got his wish, what is to stop the next politician to propose making driving after dark illegal because he had a brother die while driving at night? Or to outlaw alcohol because his friend was killed by a drunk driver? It is not that I do not sympathize with him or that I do not care about what happened to his mother. But people make choices and it is also morally wrong and morally objectionable to steal from taxpayers to help others who failed to plan ahead.

Willing charity is, therefore fine, forced charity is not. But the liberal mindset is “bad things happen, what can the government do?” The mindset should be “bad things happen, what can I do to be prepared?” Which leads into the next point: individual accountability and responsibility.

I have no idea why but Americans over the past century have given up one freedom after another in the mistaken belief that government has all the answers and will protect them. A century ago, you either worked, starved or survived off of the willing charity of others. Today, however, as noted above, charity is enforced by government policy that has little or no accountability tied to it. Obama seeks to expand that

But it goes even deeper than that. Accountability at its core is under attack by Obama and others like him. Consider his vote of “no” on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers to hold them accountable for what others did with their products. According to that theory, if I buy hot coffee at McDonald’s and then proceed to throw it into somebody’s face then McDonald’s is liable for serving hot coffee. Of course, this theory is just as silly as the actual award of nearly $3 million a few years ago by a jury to the woman who burned herself with the coffee. Yet another example that you’re not responsible as there is always somebody else you can blame.

Obama’s stand on abortion bears this out as well. Consider that he said of partial birth abortion that he trusts “women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy,” yet he voted “no” on notifying parents of minors who get any kind of out-of-state abortion. Women should discuss it with their husbands but children should not even make their parents aware? That just doesn’t make sense. Further, Obama, of course, voted against banning the nightmarish practice of partial birth abortion.

Lastly we come to what may be the most critical issue of the election: national security. As serious as abortion is, an entire city could be murdered in a single nuclear flash. And I’m just not convinced that Obama understands the seriousness of the situation.

For example, in response to a question during a primary debate, Obama said that “America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations and I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.”

“The wrong message to the world?” The message we need to send to the world is that America will do whatever it takes to capture known terrorists to get information out of them. Terrorists blow up women and children, terrorists want to cause as much death and pain to as many innocents as possible. Let me add here that the thought of torturing a, human being is repugnant, but in one willing to blow up women and children indiscriminately, there is no humanity. We clearly are not talking about the normal situations of war and captured soldiers here. So if you are a terrorist and the United States knows you’re a terrorist the message needed is not one of pampered detention. The message needed is that you’re in trouble.

Additionally, in November of 2007, Obama pronounced the surge a failure despite the evidence to the contrary. He has been critical of the war and believes that invading Iraq (a war in which we put an end to the reign of a mass-murdering tyrant) was a mistake. I would ask the majority of Iraqis whether or not they regard it as a mistake. Do the math. Even factoring in the minimum number of people most agree that Saddam killed during his reign, you would still come out with more deaths under Saddam than because of the war. It is a cold equation but a reality nonetheless. Factor in the potential future Iraqis now have, however, and it becomes clear that we did the right thing by invading Iraq.

Concerning Iran, Obama actually recognizes that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a security threat but suggested diplomacy as the answer. Sounds good but I would ask the senator what his plans are when that diplomacy fails? War? If not, then what? It is naive to rest all your hopes on diplomacy.

Obama has a long road ahead of him. But, barring any surprises along the way, I feel confident he will take his party’s nomination. Too many people dislike Hillary Clinton for her to succeed and John Edwards’ “two Americas” fiction doesn’t hold water unless you refer to one America as “wealthy” and the other as “even wealthier.” So, it comes down to the bad choice (whoever the Republicans nominate) and the even worse choice, the Democratic nominee.

Jeff O’Bryant is an amateur historian and holds two degrees, a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com or through his blog at rightnewsandviews.com.