Obama, or Clinton 2.0?

I got into a debate this last semester with my Ethics professor after some comments she made following the election. Here is the email that I wound up sending her when she asked for all of the articles to back up the things I was claiming, so I thought that I would share it here. It has just come to my attention that one of my close friends is apparently an Obama supporter, so we shall certainly have words when he arrives in town tomorrow.

Here are some links to news articles concerning Obama and some of his cabinet picks, specifically Rahm Emanuel.

Here's a TIMES article talking about Emanuel's appointment:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1857215,00.html?iid=digg_share
They conveniently leave out Emanuel's terrorist ties however.

Here's an article detailing Emanuel's link to the Zionist Terrorist Organization, the Irgun, which his father is a part of.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-appointment-is-son-of-zionist-terrorist.html

Here's an article talking about how the entry on wikipedia talking about his terrorist father was mysteriously deleted:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m48750&hd=&size=1&l=e

Here's another article, from ABC news, showing that Emanuel was on the board of Freddie Mack when all of the sour mortgage business went down
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

Not to mention that his dad's still a bit of a racist:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75425&sectionid=3510203

Now aside from Rahm, let's look at a few things on Obama also, just for kicks. How about ho he plans to accept funds from the UN 'Population Fund' that George Bush refused back in 2002, because the Population Fund supports China's policies of coercive abortions and sterilization under it's one child policy.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=16721

Aside from that, how about when he deviated from one of his speeches to talk about the 'civilian national defense force' that will be just as 'well funded' as the military. Maybe it's just my minor paranoia, but that sounds a lot like secret police, something most Socialist countries have done to very little success. Also, if it's to be as 'well funded' as the military, even after he cuts the DoD budget, if he adds another 'security force' that's getting the same sized budget, then that means larger amounts of Government spending, which will result in higher taxes. I thought he told people he'd be cutting taxes though...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

Then there's the fact that he, along with McCain, vigorously lobbied for the passage of the Bailout, something which the entire nation was against, but was passed anyways despite the will of the people. Altogether though, the bailout isn't going to cost us -just- 700 billion, but closer to 4 or 5 trillion now. http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2008/151008Bailout_figures.htm

Continuing on, we take a look at Obama's new oncoming energy policies, which he has said will likely "Bankrupt coal plants and cause energy prices to skyrocket". Is bankrupting coal plants and putting millions of American's out of work in a time where our unemployment rate continues to climb and our economy continues to fall really that god of an idea? Not to mention skyrocketing energy prices certainly won't help those that can barely pay the cost of energy now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/03/obamas-energy-plan-bankupt-coal-power-plants-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/

Along those lines, Obama is very outspoken about his support of environmentalism and climate change, but his support of the subsidies for biofuels that goes to corn based ethanol suggests otherwise. Currently, ethanol made from sugar can from Brazil or from switchgrass from the American plains is proven to produce a higher ratio of energy to energy used to produce it, where as corn produces just under two units of energy for every unit of energy expended to produce it. The ratio for sugar cane on the other hand is eight to one. The subsidies funding corn based ethanol also raise the price of corn world wide, which has contributed to the 75% raise in food prices worldwide ( http://www.lvrj.com/news/29991399.html ). Currently the same bill that funds the biofuel subsidies imposes a high tariff on sugar cane, which produces more energy than corn based ethanol ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin ).

Since the Democrats took control of the Congress and Senate back in 2005 with promises of repealing policies set forth by the Bush administration, nothing has been changed. They renewed the Patriot Act and have not reversed any of the controversial policies on wiretapping and spying on American Citizens, so why should we believe anything will be any different under Obama? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that I am alive to witness history being made that we as a people have made it past our issues of color and voted a Black man as President, but that's where my excitement ends, because our two-party monopoly doesn't really give us many choices. When it all boils down to it, I think whoever said "Obama is Coca-Cola and McCain is Pepsi - at the end of the day you’re still drinking the same beverage." said it best.

When are we going to wake up to the fact that voting in the lesser of two evils is not a solution?

When are we going to realize that participating in a rigged system, where our vote means virtually nothing anyway because it is counted by a completely compromised and hackable voting machine, not only fails to address any of our problems, but actually compounds them because of our passive obedience in participating in the phony virtual reality presented to us as “democracy”?

I'll make one last point before wrapping up this short diatribe on why I am not overly thrilled with Obama's election. On the point of the second amendment, the people's fears of further crackdown on their right to bear arms is not entirely unfounded. Ontheissues.org, a website that was dedicated to clarifying where each candidate stood on the issues, gives a very detailed breakdown of where Obama stands on the second amendment ( http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm ). In Illinois, he supported the sale and possession of not only assault weapons, but all weapons period. It was also his position in his home state that retired police officers are the only ones who should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. In an investigative piece written by Howard Nemerov ( http://www.amazon.com/Four-Hundred-Years-Gun-Control/dp/0981738222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212634673&sr=1-1 ) he presents a great deal of data which shows that recent disarmament of civilians in England and Australia has failed to make those countries any safer than they were before. He poses a very good question, after four hundred years of anti-gun legislation, why has nothing changed?

I look forward to your thoughts on the information presented here and openly welcome any rebuttal of the information in this email. Again, I am -not- steadfastly opposed tot he President Elect, I think a few things he has planned may be good, but overall I do not think he is worthy of the messianic complex that has been placed on him. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081348/Can-black-Jesus-escape-assassins-bullet.html ; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/11/03/barack_obama_described_as_prophet_moses_by_bishop )




Tune in next time, for the Revolution will not be televised.

-The Kirk
Email me!