Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

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.


There’s a new twist in the slugfest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Faced with stiff competition from the Illinois senator, Mrs. Clinton appears to have borrowed a page from the neoconservatives’ handbook on election strategy. That page has “you must create fear” written all over it. It’s simple really. When you can’t beat your opponent in a straight fight, you must try to convince the voters that, if elected to office, your opponent would spell imminent doom for the country, the world, and of course, think of the children! Mrs. Clinton has attempted to play the experience card, but the results have been less than stellar. Obama just continues to build momentum, winning in state after state, despite his lack of experience that is so often cited by Mrs. Clinton as the number one reason why he should not be President.

But now the Clinton camp has taken the experience card to the doomsday level. In this campaign ad we are presented this hypothetical situation: It’s 3 a.m. Your kids are safely asleep in their beds. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something is “happening” out there in our dangerous world that demands immediate attention from the President of the United States. Do we want the “wet behind the ears” Obama to answer the call and attempt to deal with the problem? Or would we rather have Mrs. “experience is my middle name” Clinton in charge?

Certainly this ad will spark much debate and controversy. And yes, it’s pretty obvious that this is the type of ad your campaign runs when you are desperate. And yes, it is flagrant fearmongering. But I imagine that most of the debate concerning this ad will center on the question of whether Clinton or Obama would be more qualified to handle the doomsday scenario. It’s just assumed that the President of the United States is required to be the world’s savior. It’s part of the job description. But why? Why is the President of the United States expected to be the world’s savior? Why don’t we expect the President of Switzerland to solve all of the world’s problems? Well, I submit once again that our government’s foreign policy is to blame. The United States began it’s foreign policy of expansionism in the late 19th century and continues it apace to this very day. In short, the United States government has bought much of the world over the last hundred years or so. Is it any wonder then, that their problems are our problems? They are all part of the American empire. And until we have a president who will dismantle the empire, the United States will never be safe from the doomsday scenario. Instead of debating who is better qualified to handle “that” call at 3 a.m., perhaps we should be examining the reasons why we are always concerned that the call could be made in the first place. Maybe if our government would stop meddling in so many other countries’ affairs at all hours of the day, we could stop worrying about “that” call at 3 a.m.

By now we all are well aware of the crisis in the subprime housing market. Much blame for the mess has predictably been placed on unscrupulous lenders. When do we ever hear that our government may have actually caused the problem? Of course, we just don’t hear that. After all, protocol requires that we blame the private sector for all of society’s problems. To remedy those ills we are told that we need more government regulation of those greedy, blood sucking capitalists lurking everywhere in the business world.

No one ever seems to mention legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which made it mandatory for lenders to issue loans to subprime borrowers. Tom DiLorenzo has written an excellent article on the effects of the CRA here.

In the midst of all of this fallout Democrat wunderkind Barack Obama has been calling for more government regulation to rein in loose lending practices. This seems to be just a tad disingenuous of Mr. Obama, as he has recently been endorsed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Here’s an excerpt from DiLorenzo’s article that explains how the ACORN doesn’t fall far from the CRA tree:

So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community groups” understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Are we actually supposed to believe that ACORN would endorse Obama if they believed he was going to put an end to the “lending practices” that have been so lucrative for them?

But what of Mr. O’s challenger, the incorrigible Mrs. Clinton? Well, naturally she understands that it’s standard procedure for a government person to blame the market for every problem we encounter in this country, so that’s what she does regarding the subprime mortgage situation. She criticizes unfair lending practices and talks about holding lenders and brokers accountable in her speech before the National Community Reinvestment Coalition(NCRC). By the way the NCRC offers this explanation of what it is, and what it does:

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition is a national not-for-profit with over 800 membership organizations with constituents in every state in the country. The Coalition has spearheaded a proactive community reinvestment movement with the goal of ending discriminatory banking practices and increasing the flow of private capital and credit into traditionally underserved communities. (emphasis added)

UPDATE: I must thank a reader of this post for pointing out that the NCRC does NOT state that they increase the flow of private capital and credit into “undeserving” communities. Unfortunately, I missed the letter “r” that actually made that word “under-served.” Sorry about that.

This, of course, is not to say that I now find the NCRC more palatable. Since the gist of this post was mainly to highlight the disruptive nature of government regulation like the CRA, I should mention that the NCRC has called for the strengthening of the CRA. At the same time, however, the NCRC has also called for more accountability within the banking industry. But herein lies the problem.  The CRA that is so strongly supported by the NCRC forces banks to be accountable ONLY to federal regulatory agencies, NOT the people who are trying to procure a loan.

All of us out here in the land of the sheep have been hearing for months about this great agent of political change named Barack Obama. Especially on matters of war and peace, Obama has been portrayed as the “real” anti-war candidate of the “real” anti-war party. Sure we know he is opposed to the war in Iraq, but let’s remember that he is, after all, a Democrat. The war being waged in Iraq is a Republican war. And we must not forget about loyalty to “the Party.” I mean, war and peace are important, but Party unity trumps all other concerns when it comes to politics. Think back to the 1990’s and Clinton’s incursion into Kosovo. Which party was critical of war then? Remember, it was war making controlled by Democrats so naturally the Republicans opposed it. In Washington D.C. there is hardly any opposition to war that is rooted in true anti-war principles. Instead we have politicians being anti-war when it’s convenient. If they believe taking up a pro-war position will help to secure votes and advance their dreams of increased political power and stature, then, by all means, they will adopt a suitably pro-war position. Likewise, if the political winds are indicating that a politician who espouses an anti-war position will see his or her level of political clout rise more expeditiously than that of the pro-war politician, then strike up the band and start singing “give peace a chance.”

Unfortunately, the two candidates in this year’s presidential contest who maintain a principled aversion to war, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, are relegated to the sidelines while the poseurs duke it out on center stage.

Alright, so we know about Obama’s position on Iraq. But, what’s his approach to Pakistan? In this excellent you tube clip we see and hear that Obama is not quite the anti-war candidate he’s cracked up to be. He more or less states that our troops are just in the wrong place. According to him they don’t necessarily need to come home. They just need to be shifted to other places in the Middle East, like Pakistan. And when Obama speaks about terrorists plotting to strike America again, we are subjected to a level of fearmongering that’s worthy of the most bellicose neocons.

In short, the anointed prince of change does not really oppose the war on terror. He just doesn’t approve of the way the Bush administration is fighting it. He, on the other hand, is going to do whatever it takes. He’ll get tough with those towel heads in the right places!

And if he receives his party’s nomination, and goes on to become president, I can’t wait to see all of the anti-Iraq war Democrats stop on a dime and support whatever military adventure Mr. Obama has up his sleeve. After all, we must remember that loyalty to “the Party” is priority number one.

Super Tuesday was, indeed, frustrating for those of us who are supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for president. We know that the mainstream media is blatantly ignoring him. We also know that if only more people actually HEARD what Dr. Paul has to say, they would be impressed. I understand that not everyone will like him, regardless of how much media exposure he receives. And that’s fine. But, shouldn’t anyone who actually values freedom of expression and freedom of ideas be appalled that such obvious censorship should exist in the so called “land of the free?” So what if 99.9% of Americans totally disagree with Ron Paul’s positions? No one will know if ANYONE disagrees with his positions if our various media outlets continue to hide him from the public. Don’t the American people deserve to hear EVERY political opinion from EVERY candidate during an election season.
To be fair, how many people really got a chance to become familiar with Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side? The Dems have the anti-war reputation, but the heroically anti-war Kucinich was virtually ignored. Anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will actually demilitarize the Militant States of America is deluding themselves. After all, the top five arms makers in the U.S., Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900 as opposed to $86,800 for Republicans. Most of that money went to Clinton, but Obama got his share as well. Seems like they’re betting on a Dem to win and they sure don’t want to back the wrong pony. After all, there’s always a war going on somewhere.
Now, I will admit that I don’t agree with Mr. Kucinich’s economic beliefs, but I respect him for sticking to his principles. As for Ron Paul, well, most people will immediately tell you he has no chance as soon as you mention his name. And that is most likely true. It is also a great shame. Here is a man who espouses the very same principles of governance upon which this country was founded. And today, we are informed that these principles are irrelevant, outdated, and stand no chance. How would Thomas Jefferson react if someone could tell him that all of HIS principles no longer apply in America? What would he say if he found out that our president is now more like a king? Then again, perhaps he wouldn’t be surprised at all. Perhaps he just would have said something like “Well, I knew it would happen sooner or later. It always does.”
So how should a Ron Paul supporter feel about this campaign so far? Sure, it looks pretty bleak, but there are lots of positives! Just think about this for a moment. How many people knew about Ron Paul or the freedom movement just one year ago? How many people now feel like there’s actually something worthwhile in politics? How many people realized that a Republican can be anti-war? How many people realized that anyone who favors limited government is necessarily anti-war? Of course, no one knows an exact number of people, but one can rest assured that there are thousands more now than there were one year ago. This is going to be a long fight. As Dr. Paul has said many times, this movement is not about him. It’s about the message. The message is spreading everyday. It’s all over this very world wide web. And even with the limited time he is allowed in the “debates,” Ron Paul eloquently communicates the message to everyone watching around the country.
This is just the beginning. But, it is indeed a good beginning. So far in 2008 nineteen states have held primary elections. (I’m not including caucuses here) Ron Paul’s vote total, according to the numbers I compiled from CNN’s website is 533,290. In the general election of 1988, when he ran as a libertarian he received only 431,750 votes. He’s already surpassed that number, and there’s a long way to go. The freedom movement is most certainly not at its end. On the contrary, it has just been given a shot of adrenaline by the good doctor!