Who is Barack Obama?

Glen Ford, who I greatly admire, writes the Black Agenda Report also on audio which you can download from their site. He wrote a short piece from which I will quote the following paragraph (http://www.BlackAgendaReport.com):

"The Senator from Illinois masquerades as a "peace candidate" - and then proposes the Americans invade Pakistan, the only Muslim nation that has The Bomb. After the U.S. has propped up the military regime for generations, and stunted democracy in a country of 165 million, Obama now thinks he can just walk into western Pakistan - Waziristan - to find and kill Osama bin Ladin. In the process, he would unite all of the Right and the Left opposition to the government in Islamabad, and give the generals no choice but to brandish The Bomb. Obama wants to add 100,000 new troops to the U.S. military. Now we know where they will be going: Waziristan, a place from Hell." (Barack Obama, the War Monger)

I think this needs to be burned into our brains so we don't forget what we're getting if this guy is selected to be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

The comparisons which have been made, often by him, of himself and President John Kennedy may be prophetic. Kennedy was idealized much as Obama is being idealized but it was not a great period in U.S. history. I lived through it and I remember it as the time when we taught our children, as silly as it sounds now, to "duck and cover" as the nuclear scenario if the Soviets should shoot missiles at us. The military was on a hair trigger alert and everyone was tense. The doomsday clock was close to midnight.

We don't need a reincarnation of John Kennedy, who also tried more than once to assassinate Fidel Castro (And Fidel outlived him and a lot of other presidents). It was John Kennedy who supported and propped up U.S. friendly dictatorships throughout Latin and South American which oppressed their own people. It was Kennedy who kept the cold war going and brought us the infamous "Bay of Pigs" fiasco and Kennedy who brought us to the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Kennedy ordered the assassination of our puppet - who the U.S. installed president of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. [Sort of like "I voted for it before I voted against it." - First we install this incompetent proxy and then we murder him.] And then somebody took out John Kennedy.

After Diem was murdered as Kennedy had ordered, Kennedy was also murdered and those responsible are still unknown to us. Obviously, somebody knows and we would too if the conspirators and those they colluded with inside the government wanted us to know.

The Vietnam War Kennedy can take credit for and I personally saw WHICH killed 58,000 Americans and over a MILLION Vietnamese. And, Obama has been compared to Kennedy?

I worked for the President Dwight D. Eisenhower and there was as much difference between Ike, a really good (Republican) president; and Kennedy, a really disappointing (Democrat) president - though miss-perceived as great by Democrats but hardly the paragon of virtue with his many indiscretions nor did he epitomize a "peace" president. Ike was a general who kept us out of war. Kennedy was the peace-maker who kept us in war.

I am a Vietnam veteran and I don't like Kennedy. I know could have ended it. Some say he would have which was why he was assassinated. But there never was a Camelot. Though there was a mystique and an attraction for JFK like there is for Obama and for JFK, it was illusory and it was more what Democrats wanted than what Democrats imagined. Nor do I like Obama who is no Kennedy even though he been, in my opinion, erroneously compared to John Kennedy.

Obama and Lieberman

Received this from hapi22(at)earthlink.net on a Yahoo mailing list:

"In March 2006, when Obama rushed to help Joe Lieberman get re-elected, it was already a well-known fact that Lieberman was SUPPORTING the Iraq war and Lieberman's opponent Ned Lamont was AGAINST the Iraq war." (hap22)

"So, if Obama's opposition to the Iraq war was real and constant (as he tells us it was), WHY was Obama supporting the PRO-Iraq war candidate and NOT the anti-Iraq war candidate Ned Lamont?" (hap22)

"In 2006, when Obama rushed to help Lieberman get re-elected, Lieberman's support for the Iraq war had already "disappointed a lot of Democratic colleagues" -- but Obama supported Lieberman anyway." (hap22)

"Obama tells us his opposition to the Iraq war was constant, but his opposition to the Iraq war was evidently not strong enough or constant enough to prevent him from helping his senate MENTOR Joe Lieberman." (hap22)

He also writes,
"And `Lieberman told the crowd that Obama had chosen Lieberman as his mentor.'"
(http://tinyurl.com/3cdhty)

Obama will continue to use mercenaries to conduct military operations in Iraq. If Obama was really anti-war he wouldn't just bring home the troops which seems more and more doubtful given his continued funding of the war and reluctance to speak of it in the Senate, only doing so for public consumption on the campaign trail.

"A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)" (Jeremy Scahill, Nation Mag - February 27, 2008 (March 17, 2008 issue) "Obama's Mercenary Position")

Senator Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is co-sponsoring a bill in the Senate which would ban the use of military contracts, like Blackwater and others, in Iraq. She says, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." And according to Obama's foreign policy adviser he will not sign legislation which banned the use of these contractors.

Media Gang Rape

The last debate between Obama and Clinton was a media gang rape. The conduct, especially by Chris Matthews was despicable. It was as humiliating as it was wrong. Both of them in fact never let up on Hillary Clinton and they never went after Obama with the same zeal and intensity and did quite the opposite; they gave Obama another pass.

They would not let her finish any of her responses to Obama's disparagement and this one-sidedness put her at a competitive disadvantage. It was the worst behavior by the press I've witnessed in a presidential debate. It was intentional favoritism toward Obama. I have no doubt much of it was ALSO indicative of unconscious gender bigoted attitudes by men.

Obama was untouchable. This position seems to be typical even with conservatives. Even when the right-wing talk show host introduced McCain that same day at a rally and referred to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, mentioned his association with Rezko and called him a "Daley machine hack", McCain admonished Bill Cunningham. If telling the truth about Obama is going to be off-limits in the McCain race, he won't win.

Interestingly, Bill Cunningham introduced John McCain by calling him "John Wayne McCain." McCain's middle name is really Sidney.

Cunningham is no friend of mine. I don't like his politics, but it once again demonstrates how Democrats and even Republicans have become so politically correct they refuse even to tell the truth if it is going to appear offensive. If someone is African-American, the limit for what can be said is tightened. If a women, it seems, almost anything goes. When the right warned us about political correctness I thought it was just a tactic but I see there is some logic to their objections and sensibility now matters more than getting it right. Even Rush Limbaugh criticized McCain for backing down from Cunningham's remarks -- because they were true. This is the one and perhaps only time I will ever agree with Rush Limbaugh.

See the next day's editorial in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel where a Republican editor writes the same thing I was thinking and says it very cogently. He said that Hillary is being torpedoed by chauvinist white men in the media. And they got that right.

I acknowledge that Hillary doesn't always have the best answers. She is not as progressive and as passionate about all the things I am - although lately with what is going on in this election I am feeling somewhat liberated from some of those previously held views. The left has been wrong a lot and they don't have a corner on the market of truth and compassion. And labels don't seem to work anymore. Every situation has its own set of ramifications and answers and they don't follow a specific line of march.

A subscriber from PNEWS-L ("Progressive News & Views") sent me email this morning telling me how he was sorry but he can't support Hillary because of her tough stance on Cuba. And because of that, he will be backing Obama. I doubt that Obama has a definite position on anything which won't change since he appears to be the champ flip flopper. And who is to say what our policy will transform into on Cuba if their government changes. And what reasonable person could stipulate policy in advance of change or congressional debate and approval?

There are a lot of things I like about Cuba. I like the fact that everyone has free medical care and everyone can attend a university. We can learn some things from them. But, likewise, Cuba is no bastion of democratic values nor does it represent the good life for everyone who lives there. Granted, there are some great achievements and we have to give Cuba and Fidel credit, but he has also been the longest living dictator in the world and that should not be acceptable to anyone. We will NEVER be like Cuba nore should we. We're not Cuba. And we have a long way to go ourselves. I think Cuba is the wrong comparison to make.

Obama is a faker who stretches the truth. He has been horrible in the debates but for anyone who still remembers them, in previous elections debates rarely made a difference in the outcome of an election.

Obama has not been sufficiently vetted by the media and he is being treated like a cult figure. He gives a good speech, written by his speech-writers (He claims to have written some of them himself), but is a terrible speaker; certainly, not as good as Hillary. He changes positions so often you can't keep up with his real position on anything. But the spin doctors who work for him have been good at covering all that up.

He said in one interview with the New York Times that, if he was briefed the same as the other Senators were briefed leading up to the vote for authorization to use force in Iraq he might have voted the same way they did. And he has since removed his "famous" speech from his website, which he has often refered to in this primary - and the excuse was because it was old. He removed it because of the perfidy of saying to one source you might have voted differently if given the same information. To have that speech online and get caught in that lie would be worse than not having it on his site at all. He can't use it as a wedge to show he has better judgment when he is nothing less than an opportunist who is where he is at because of the 2004 speech at the Democratic convention and is now in the Senate because of dirty money from his Arab friends.

He was before he became a U.S. Senator a vociferous, outspoken critic of Israel and supporter of the Palestinians and some of his friends were former terrorists or supporters of terrorism and they still are, but since running for president he has opportunistically changed that tact and now is a total supporter of Israel, even the crimes perpetrated by bad Israeli government policy. Israel now can do no wrong. This is the kind of person Barack Hussein Obama is. Who can't see through that fog of deception?

If a Conspiracy to Destroy the U.S.

It Couldn't Be More Perfect Than This

They hate Hillary. We know that.
They also hate Nader.

Democrats who do not want Nader to compete for president in 2008 are not democrats. There is a whole lot of disrespect for Ralph Nader. Democracy must mean more than two parties beholden to the same special interests. It must include opposition to the prevailing views.

I have been convinced for some time that the OLD Left - some of which would hang out on the Internet in the early days - back in the early 80s when I first got on the net before it was a household name and the Left - who speak through blogs - today are not the same left

Most of that left disintegrated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The radical socialists, of which I was part, still exists but in very small measure. Only in the last couple of years there is something new; it is called the "blogosphere" which is a cacophony of voices, a babel of conformists to an imagined liberal line of march. It isn't radical, it isn't socialist, it isn't original. It isn't even liberal. Probably the only thing that unites it, it calls itself liberal but it is really antithesis of liberalism and it sure doesn't consider anything redeeming or worth hanging on to about the 60s. Some of you remember the 60s and the activists who fought the good fight. Some of you, like me, fought that good fight.

This new crop of InterNUT "liberal blogger" neophytes don't like the 60s or those for whom it meant so much - or anyone older than they are - and they blame the 60s for went wrong. They are 2008 Yuppies wanting to FEEL good and worship the "transformative" ideals of all people, President Ronald Reagan - 'cause Obama tells them so. Reagan brought us right up to the abyss. They have forgotten already it took a conservative Democrat, Bill Clinton to turn that period around and transform us in the other direction.

The former president has an 80% online approval rating, but the "liberal" blogosphere which loves Obama, hates Bill Clinton. To them, he represents everything which is wrong with America. Every concession he ever made is held against him. They forget that is what a democracy is, it is concessionary but in the right direction - and Bill Clinton, for all the things we can criticize him for kept us safe, foiled more terrorist attacks than any other president ever did and gave us a great economy. Even NAFTA is a good thing if the Republicans had not gotten their hands on it and in a Global Village, which is what the world has become, there is need for global trade and a free trade alliance can be a benefit. Hillary wants to modify NAFTA so there are protections for workers and the environment.

The young Obama supporters don't have any memory for the tribulations we experienced in the jungle war in Vietnam and the civil rights battles we fought by black and whites until they threw whites out - mostly the socialist Jews who were the leaders of the movement).

Most are young - and their cult leader, Obama, tells them they're going have CHANGE.

That is a codeword for "smash the system." Start over. Well, if you smash it, you have to fix it and nobody has any ideas about that. It is a lot of words without substance coming out of Obamaland. And, the thought of Obama with the president's suitcase ought to keep everyone up at night.

If he becomes president, the Doomsday clock
needs to be moved closer to midnight.

If a conspiracy to destroy the U.S.

it couldn't be more perfect

Hank Roth

All (if any) quoting per the Fair Use Doctrine
for educational and discussion purposes pursuant to
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.

|

Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Theta/PeR.shtml

Today is Saturday July 04, 2009

Also try out the "NEW" Message Board