Change

We Can All Believe In

Obama referred to his white grandmother as a "typical white person." So what do you think the response would be if Hillary Clinton referred to a black person, any black person, or even Obama as a "typical" black person? Is this kind of change Barack Obama talked about and promised?

Obama repeatedly questioned Hillary Clinton's judgement for voting for the Iraq War. Why wasn't Obama's judgement given the same intense scrutiny? Why wasn't Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright given as much scrutiny? How did Obama get away with his con-job? How could so many be so naive? "...First, his political acumen. Did he seriously believe that after his two terms as a state senator and twenty-year membership in a church that celebrates and preaches black separatism he could launch a presidential bid on the theme of being an agent of racial harmony? What was he thinking? It all reeks of arrogance.." - Beacon Street Journal

Obama never condemned his minister of 20 years for his antisemitism and support of antisemites. Obama never told his minister, who he considered to be just like an UNCLE, how inappropriate his views when they had one of their many private dinners together, have you? That is because he didn't. And if he didn't, you have to assume his policies and feelings are the same as his mentor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright. - Their views were exactly alike.

"The essence of Obama is at odds with what makes America, America. From his elementary days in which he was taught the civics of third-world, Islamic Indonesia to his mentorship with Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis, to his college days in which he befriended Marxist professors and structural feminists, to his Saul Alinsky training to his 20-year tenure at Jeremiah Wright's "Christian" church, Obama inhaled the fumes of anti-American-capitalism his entire life." - Canada Free Press (Nov - 2011)

Obama did not condemn the convicted felon, Tony Rezko publicly for his crimes and his own association with Rezko. He can't deny knowing when many of Rezko's projects were only blocks away from Obama's office - and were taking place even as Obama interceded for Rezko in obtaining millions of dollars of tax payer money to finance the crime.

The media was NOT critical of Barack Obama like they are of Hillary Clinton? Why should he get so many media passes? Some suggest this "media pass" and Obama's white liberal support has been (and still is) a consequence of America's "white guilt." The "progressive blogosphere" disgustingly continued to drool over everything he said and did. That is not a legitimate left; not the left I remember. There is no left that is left anymore and the InterNUT, it seems, may have had some influence toward morphing GenX into a bourgeoisie conglomeration of idiomatic supremist elitist liberals.

Anti-Working-Class, Anti-Middle-Class Change

Obama, when speaking to a crowd of 20,000 at the Toyota Center in Houston, Texas, just after he won the Wisconsin primary proposed the "change" to what we need to spend on the national infrastructure, neglected for the more than the last 20 years. He said:

"If you're ready for change, we can start reinvesting in America, in the cities. We are spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. We can invest that money in rebuilding roads and bridges and hospitals right here in Houston, building schools, laying broadband lines, putting people back to work, employing young men and young women in our inner cities, in our rural communities. That is possible if you're ready for change." (Obama)

Those were his words. Is that really what he meant? It isn't nearly enough. His solution is not going to adequately address the problem anymore than his bandaid solutions on everything else to come out of his toolbox of ideas and it hasn't.

"In fact, Obama was only at that time (in 2008) proposing to spend $6 billion a year on infrastructure repair--less than the monthly cost of the war in Iraq--and an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to the $1.6 trillion the American Society of Engineers says is required to bring the nation's infrastructure up to good condition." (Obama's Texas speech: Populist appeals with reassurances to big business, By Jerry White - 21 February 2008)

As for soaring college tuition,

he said this:

"We're going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit [to] every student, every year, but, students, you're going to have to give back something in return. You're going to have to participate in community service. You're going to have to work in a homeless shelter, or a veterans home, or an underserved school, or join the Peace Corps." (ibid)

Barack Obama's message of "change and hope" which resonated so well with Americans yearning for change is substantial altering reality. Change for Obama is a new face; the "Arab Spring" he has promoted and supported - change insuring theocratic radical Islamism to be the new reality in the Middle East. That is the change from Barack Obama we can believe in.

What About Iraq?

We may have been wrong to interfere with the balance of power by invading Iraq, but what-if Saddam did possess those weapons of mass destruction that so many thought he had? What if the intelligence, which turned out to be flawed, was right and we didn't do anything? Sure, we can say now that the UN inspectors were doing their job and restraining Saddam from doing anything worse, but it is just as foolish to think he would not oppress his own people and attack Israel and if he ever obtained the WMD he wanted and had tried many times to obtain - and we can reasonably assume he would eventually have those weapons; at which time he would be inclined to use them. Then where would we be? Saddam Hussein was not a good guy. He was an evil son-of-a-bitch.

"In 1988-89, Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of 5,000 and the massacre of more than 100,000 Kurds. In 1991 after the First Gulf War, he was responsible for the killing of a similar number of Shiites. On June 4, 1994, Saddam's regime issued Decree 59, which prescribed---in accordance with traditional shari's ruling--amputation of teh right hand for a theft or less than ten dollars, amputation of teh left foot for a second theft, and death for a third. Decree 109, issued on August 18, 1994, prescribed tattooing or branding with an "X" between the eyebrows all persons who had undergone legally sanctioned amputations. Decree 115, which was isued on August 25, 1994, ordered the "cutting off of the auricle of one ear of each person evading military service" or deserting, as well as of those who sheltered such offenders. Any journalist, politician, businessman, or diplomat could have noticed the mutilated Iraqis punished by Saddam's judiciary. Yet, those crimes remained little known to the Western public until quite recently. In reliable polls, millions of Europeans backed Saddam Hussein against America in 2003 and even hped for his success on the battlefield." (Bat Ye'or, Eurabia, The Euro-Arab Axis, (2nd printing) 2003)

And if we did not go it with our "coalition of the willing" who were often not so willing, who would oppose this evil in the Middle East? Israel would but there is already enough hostility between Israel and it's Arab neighbors. How about Europeans? Only if they believed Saddam was a direct threat (and of course he was) to them. "In 2003, the EU, which for years had cultivated excellent relations with Syria and its surrogates in Lebanon, refused to place Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organizations. When, in America's war against terrorism, President Bush urged Europe in June 2003 to block HAMAS funds, France adamently refused...European leaders--especially French politicians cultivated friendly relations with states and organizations sponsoring terror, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." (ibid)

Our government which has a responsibility to protect Americans and secondarily our allies, would be imprudent if it didn't act. So, we're there and perhaps it was a misstake? We can all pontificate in retrospect about what should have been done (We don't know what Obama would have done in spite of what he says now). The bottom line is the administration did what it did and even if some don't like it many people died and were hurt to make the world a safer place for all of us. Osama and Saddam (and Gadaffi) are now dead and it is good they are no longer around. Congratulations to our military for that.

The bottom line is if we leave Iraq without providing security, not just for the oil, but to prevent a bloodbath with Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, preventing them from killing each other (and other factions) in a civil war, and letting terrorism take an even greater foothold, not to forget Iran's interest and influence in Iraq which would not hesitate to use Iraq as a launching ground for its terrorist adventures against Europe, the U.S. and of course, Israel. - WE have a responsibility not let the lives which were lost fighting for freedom, to have died in vain. We have the responsibility to forcefully, with U.S. all of our power and might, prevent anymore carnage. We can't just leave. It doesn't work that way.

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/Alpha/ChA.shtml

Today is Saturday February 04, 2012