Skip navigation

Barack Obama has been heralded by many people as the anti-war candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Should he receive the Democratic Party’s nomination, thousands of Americans who are against government sanctioned mass murder will cast their votes for the Senator from Illinois. It’s obvious that he can deliver quite a rousing speech. And he is clearly an intelligent man. Neither of those qualities have been in doubt during this campaign. But is he really the anti-war candidate? Or is he merely the different kind of war candidate? I submit that the latter is actually the case.

Let’s take a gander at this article from NPR and read some comments from this supposed peacenik:
” There are terrorists holed up in those (Pakistan) mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Now, if I hadn’t mentioned that the above statement came from “peace candidate” Obama anyone reading it could have easily assumed that it was made by any member of the Bush Administration or the presumptive Republican nominee for president, John McCain. And what’s this about us “acting” if Musharraf won’t? Could this be a veiled threat of an Obama commissioned American invasion of Pakistan?

I wouldn’t doubt it. After all, according to NPR, “Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and put them ‘on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.’ He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.”

Again, this is the plan of the “peace” candidate? Alright, I’ll admit, compared to John “100 years in Iraq” McCain, Obama’s comments seem almost pacific. But, that’s not really saying much.

Make no mistake about it, the “Barack star ” is not an Iraq war fan. After all, that’s a war that was started by George W. Bush, a Republican. Mr. Obama, being much more enlightened on foreign affairs as a Democrat, knows which wars the U.S. should be fighting in the Middle East. In this statement regarding the redeployment of troops from Iraq he makes his position crystal clear:

“As we redeploy from Iraq – as I believe we must do – we have to redouble our efforts on all fronts in Afghanistan to ensure we do not lose ground there.”

“Certainly, we’ve had some success there over the last five and half years, whether it’s the five-fold increase in the number of Afghan boys and girls now attending schools or the free elections of a president and parliament.”

“Yet the remaining challenges in Afghanistan are enormous: Opium production is expected to reach a record high this year, with revenues helping to fuel the Taliban and al Qaeda. The Taliban has increased its campaign of suicide attacks and roadside bombings in recent months. Most troubling, Mr. President, is this simple fact: The leaders of Al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri – and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, remain at large. They are now free to operate in a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. That has to change.”

“First, the United States must increase reconstruction efforts, on both the civilian and military side. If we are serious about winning the war on terror, we must shift to greater investments in winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. The U.S. should allocate money in a way that allows more flexibility in our spending, permitting funding of local projects that benefit communities and promising local governments.”

We should “redouble our efforts on all fronts in Afghanistan?” We should “win the hearts and minds of Afghans?” Last time I checked the U.S. government was attempting to win hearts and minds in Iraq. They claim that can be accomplished with bombs and guns, by the way. But, remember this is this “anti-war” candidate.

And of course, Obama believes it is the responsibility of the American taxpayer to ensure that Afghan boys and girls can go to school. Isn’t this the exact same nonsense we’ve been hearing from Bush for the past five years concerning the liberation and democratization of Iraq?

Obama’s Afghanistan and Pakistan plan won’t be the slightest bit more effective at establishing peace than Bush’s Iraq plan. Redirecting the war is not ending the war. Alas, Barack Obama is simply a different brand of warmonger.

There has been only one prospective candidate for President this year who has consistently proven that he is a staunch opponent not only of the crime that is the Iraq war, but of the foreign policy that leads our country into such criminal endeavors. He is, of course, Ron Paul. He is a true anti-war candidate who is unafraid to tell it like it is. Just read this and tell me Obama is the anti-war candidate. Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Paul’s speech:

“Our foreign policy is no less of a threat to us. Our worldwide military presence and our obsession with remaking the entire Middle East frightens a lot of people both here and abroad. Our role as world policeman and nation builder places undue burdens on the American taxpayer. Our enormous overseas military expenditures – literally hundreds of billion of dollars – are a huge drain on the American economy.”

“All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and the vague declaration of war against terrorism is worse than most in this regard.”

“If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that Congress face up to its explicit constitutional responsibility to declare war. It’s easy to condemn the management of a war one endorsed, while deferring the final decision about whether to deploy troops to the president. When Congress accepts and assumes its awesome responsibility to declare war, as directed by the Constitution, fewer wars will be fought.”

“Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both parties for the purpose of gaining, or retaining, political power. It doesn’t approach a true debate over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of foreign military interventionism and pre-emptive war.”

“How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.”

“War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.”

Americans had their chance to elect an anti-war president. Unfortunately most of them passed up that opportunity and fell for the slick political stylings of Barack Obama. While he talks about “change,” the only thing an Obama administration will change is the battlefield upon which our government wages its undeclared, illegal wars.


Advertisements

17 Comments

  1. I Voted For Hilary Clinton
    But camparing Jeremiah Wright to John McCain Minister ,,You
    Can not compare,,, John McCain,, the minister he know just gave him Money,,he does not Go to his church,,, He did not Baptise john McCain kids,,, he is not on John McCain Campaign,, Just gave John McCain money,,, to compare him with Jeremiah Wright is something the Media, and the Obama Camapaign,, doing,,Barack Obama Has a Racist man who worked on his Campaign,, Jeremiah Wright, ,, who helped Barack with the title of his book,,, who baptise his kids, Barack Obama Miinister, gave Louis Farrahkan life time achievement award, ,,, Barack Obama who went to this Racist mans church,,, for 20 years,

    Whats even sad is Barack Obama, followers don’t even Care, He can run over a person right now ,,, and people will still follow him,,, but one thing is for certain Barack no matter what, just lost this election,,, even if he wins the primary,,, from Hilary,,, Barack can not win a big state, Hilary followers will not back Barack Obama,,, just like if Hilary wins the primary,,, Barack Obama followers will not back Hilary ,,,,,
    Obama is definitely Muslim, but he is a closet Racist, who employed a racist,, of all Racist, ,,,,, he is done
    Watch Obama weblink

  2. Just an FYI. Against the War in Iraq isn’t Against War. Like it or not, there is a faction of people out there who seek the total annihilation of the west in their Jyhad. The problem was that Iraq was never one of those people. If we hadn’t been in Iraq we could have helped stop the genocide in Sudan. War is a necessary evil, and Obama at least knows when and where those evils are best served.

  3. To bad more of you “tin foil hat” voters didn’t come out for Ronny, is that what you saying?

  4. Americans love war. It is entertaining. They sit and watch torture and gunfights on the TV for entertainment. War provides jobs to large numbers of them. Those jobs help them to purchase the big-screen TVs to watch war and torture on.

    Americans have loved war and the counterfeiting racket of the Federal Reserve for over a century. War kills off the excess poor people and the counterfeiting racket pays for the war and provides the money for their big-screens.

    Where in hell did Ron Paul get the idea that Americans are opposed to war? Of course they will say they oppose it. Everybody says they oppose war. But Americans can be counted on to vote for war and wave a flag and dismiss anyone who suggests actually ending it.

  5. Sphynx, the people who are on a jihad against the west, and America in particular, are on it precisely because our government has been trying to remake the Middle East for decades. It is our foreign policy of intervention that has led to our current predicament. How would you like it if China decided they were going to solve OUR political and social problems in the U.S. by invading and teaching us the “right” way of living? No matter how well intentioned interventionism is it invariably leads to unintended consequences, resentment of America, and ultimately, blowback.

  6. J_Martin, I don’t consider myself a “tin foil hat” voter. If you’re saying that all Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy theorists, you’re wrong. I know there are some out there, the “9/11 Truthers” and so on, but let’s not get distracted by petty name calling. The fact is that Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-peace. If the mainstream press had given him fair coverage over the past year, I think we would have seen a big difference in the primary voting. Just consider this. In Paul’s home district in Texas he won his Congressional primary with 70% of the vote. People have actually gotten to know him there through the years. The media blackout did not affect them. On a national scale, however, the media blackout DID work to keep many people from learning more about Ron Paul. And that’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s the truth.

  7. Id have to disagree with some of the comments made here by some. ‘SOME’ jihad want to see our civilization off the earth, of course, but when you ask Americans how to deal with the problems in the middle east, is it not “just nuke them” or “wipe them of the earth” or some violent solution. So you have to see this from both sides, and the problem is our intervention, not our freedom. They could care less if we are free, i think the intervention, embargoes, sanctions, and wars very well creates hatred. Obama is a sham, war is a sham, do none of you read History, and the Founders advice? post ww2 should open your eyes to the problem of intervention.

  8. Very well said Jon L, thank you!

  9. Ed, Ron Paul should be thanking the media for not covering him. Not only would the media have ripped him to shreds, but the public would as well. Winning his congressional district with 70% in the state of Texas is not an indicator that he’d be well received in the rest of our country. His claim to be a Constitutionalist would be ripped apart. A simple example:

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

    He claims, “End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”

    The 14th Amendment to our Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Do we exclude the Amendments? Does he plan on leading a campaign to amend our Constitution? Or does Ron Paul just like to throw our Constitution on the table when it is convenient for him to win some peace points? Plain and simple, our Constitution says one thing. Ron Paul disagrees.

    It took me 5 minutes to find this. Imagine how much people would find if he had the lime-light. He should consider himself lucky for getting blacked out.

  10. Well, jaredude, perhaps you should have looked for about 5 and a half minutes. On the same page you link to in your comment I just found this :
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/130/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/

    Here Ron Paul clearly states : “I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

    Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment. ”

    Does this answer your question about whether Ron Paul will lead a campaign to amend the Constitution?

  11. And also jaredude, I assume you realize that it IS Constitutional to amend the Constitution.

  12. Quite right I think – strange isn’t it that the people now conceding the title on our behalf are the same that said that we were clearly going to lose 4th place? Every negative comment just becomes more inspiration to enjoy the fight.from http://blog.huqing.net

  13. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll be sure to do everything I can to prevent such a ridiculous amendment ever get passed. His notion that the 14th amendment was purely based upon post civil war necessity is absurd. Nowhere do I see how he would then deal with citizenship.

    Honestly, how are you going to deal with citizenship if not by birthright? Shall there be additional paper work to be filed to an additionally large Federal agency who gets to choose who is American and who is not? Where do you export someone who is chosen as non-American both their parents are born in America? Because you can’t honestly believe that this government agency wouldn’t abuse that power. Or would we need Lord Ron Paul in office forever to ensure that federal abuse of citizenship rights never take place.

    Believe me. I want Ron Paul to get as much exposure as you do. I’m sure he’s got some good ideas in there somewhere. We need greater exposure of his ideas so that we can use the good and discard the rest and people can move on with their lives as Ron Paul Drones.

  14. jaredude, I understand if you are not a Ron Paul supporter. That’s fine. The point of my comment to you was merely to illustrate that Ron Paul DOES follow the Constitution. You have every right to disagree with his call for amending the 14th amendment. But he is not doing anything that’s unconstitutional when he seeks an amendment.

  15. Ron Paul is not for ending birthright citizenship in the case where one or both of the parents are citizens, only in the case where both parents are non-citizens.

    It’s already this way for foreign diplomats, WHO ARE IN THE COUNTRY LEGALLY! Their children are rightly considered under the jurisdiction of the country their parents came from.

    Amending the 14th Amendment is only necessary in order to make it’s meaning crystal clear – namely that those born of alien border violators HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED “UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” It should be obvious that such babies are under the jurisdiction of the country which their parents are citizens of!

  16. This is good stuff. I completely see where you guys are coming from, and I see where Ron Paul came up with the idea. My concern would be a large federal agency now freely managing the citizenship of anyone they want whenever they want. Having birthright citizenship means that we are protecting everyone. Sure there are some people that come here illegally to get citizenship, but I’m not willing to give up the protection of the majority of people to a massive federal agency that gets to pick and choose who is a citizen and who is not.

    Also, we don’t need to amend the Constitution to enforce illegal immigration birthright. The 14th leaves it open for Congress to enforce the the amendment. How about Ron Paul drafts up a bill to simply enforce illegal immigration birthright as not being covered under the 14th amendment? If both parents are in America illegally, the child is not a US citizen. Why does Ron Paul want to make an Amendment? My personal opinion is that he wants supreme control of the American public. Maybe I’m wrong…

  17. One tiny detail often overlooked but so essential. The term “born” is a time specific event in the life of an individual.
    Dr. Paul would also want to change it to say “at the time of conception one or both parents must be citizens of this country.”
    Perhaps it can be worded more eloquently, but that is the basic gist of the idea.

    As for all the other comments; have all of you ever wondered why there is so much fracturing within one camp?
    Ron Paul has an established campaign platform. IF, there are parts you don’t like, then bite the bullet since I’m sure the rest is agreeable.
    Stand behind Dr. Paul’s lead, stop bickering over things that haven’t happened yet and focus on the goal.

    We may not all agree with each other, but you should agree with the candidate you support and put all the rest aside until the goal is achieved. Stop giving the opposition too much information to use against you.

    Read Tsun Tzu’s “Art of War” and re-think your debates.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMost troubling, Mr. President, is this simple fact: The leaders of Al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri – and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, remain at large. They are now free to operate in a safe … Read the rest of this great post here […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: