You can find part one here.
Let me reiterate – my goal in these posts is simply to say why I will not be voting for Barack Obama in the upcoming election. I’m outlining some of his positions, found on his own website, and telling you why I do not agree with them.
One person has replied already and accused me of “defaming” Senator Obama – which is ridiculous. In order to defame him I’d need to say things about him which are not true, in other words, to slander him. That’s NOT what I’m doing. I’m taking HIS own stated positions and telling you why I am not in agreement with them. With that said…
-
Opposition to the privatization of Social Security – Barack Obama is strongly against allowing those vested in Social Security to decide exactly how and where their investment will go (privatization) in order to better serve them. I think it’s a bad idea to continue pumping money into a program that has worked moderately in the past but is now quickly being depleted of its resources due to mismanagement and misuse. People should not be FORCED to depend on the government for their retirement, they should be allowed to make their own choices about where their retirement dollars go. It’s THEIR money in the first place, not the government’s. It’s hard to trust a government to “be there for you” when the government itself has not proven to be the best at financial management (i.e. national debt, budgets that don’t balance, etc.). Government-only Social Security? No thanks!
-
Continued expansion of government – Senator Obama’s “blueprint” does not specifically state it this way, but many of his ideas and plans do indeed expand government beyond its already bloated state. Many of his ideas are no doubt well-intentioned and good, but require too much increase in the size of a government that is already too large. And where do those increases come from? The only revenue source available is taxes. It doesn’t take a math whiz to know that increased programs will have to mean increased taxes. Some examples of how he would increase the size of government, from his own plan: (1) Creation of an independent watchdog agency to monitor lobbying efforts. (2) Universal Health Care (see yesterday’s post). (3) Doubling of funds going to after-school programs. (4) Increased tax credits for low-income families. (5) Matching of retirement savings at 50% for the first $1000 saved. (6) Increase the amount of government help given through the Low Income Home Energy Assitance program. Increase the size of the federal government? No thanks!
-
The slippery slope of racial profiling – Obama’s position is that racial profiling is wrong – in all cases. In general I totally agree. Nobody should be unfairly treated because of race. BUT, it is a FACT that only Arabic males were involved in the 9/11 attack on the United States. Doesn’t it make sense that people matching that profile would be “more suspect” in additional screenings at airports? I mean come on! One of my friends was going through security at the airport and guess who was picked out for the “additional screening?” A woman with two kids under 4, one of whom was throwing up at the time. A nun. And my friend, his wife, and his 3 kids. Doesn’t wisdom tell us that it’s not wrong to use the facts of an issue to take appropriate precautions? If it were white males over the age of 35 who were known to be terrorists (my racial profile), I’d gladly submit to extra screening on every flight I had to take – to ensure that our country and citizens are safe. Absolute statements against racial profiling? No thanks!
-
Iraq withdrawal timelines - Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I’m fine with that. But beyond that he promises that within 16 months of becoming President, he will have all the troops out of Iraq. Do you know what will happen then? Most attacks and problems in Iraq will stop almost immediately. The opposition will be biding their time, stock-piling weapons, building up infrastructure behind the scenes, so that the minute foreign troops are gone, they can overwhelm the weak Iraqi government and take over the country. The situation would be worse than it is now, no doubt. Announcing a timeline for withdrawal is not only a political ploy to get the vote of anti-war folks, but is also equal to saying, “O.K. enemy, in 16 months we are going to surrender and you can have free reign of the country. Have fun!” In his defense, Senator Obama says that he would be working hard with the Iraqi government to get it up to speed for the date of withdrawal. But that process is one with many variables and can’t be limited to a timeline of any sort, because nobody can predict how that process will work itself out. It’s naive to think it could be predicted. Stated withdrawal timelines for Iraq? No thanks!
-
Diplomacy with Iran – I don’t WANT a war with Iran. It would be horrible on many levels and probably very bad for our own country. But we have to leave that card on the table with a regime like is present in Iran. Senator Obama doesn’t want to even make that card available. He believes that discussion and sanctions can deter what is a truly maniacal regime in Iran. Does anyone remember the Iran hostage crisis? The philosophy and people in charge then are the same as today. They have the same Anti-American agenda. They deny the Holocaust ever happened. They have vowed to wipe Israel off the map. They have repeatedly referred to our country as their enemies, the “Great Satan.” They were duplicitous then and are duplicitous now. Hey Iran, fool the U.S. once, shame on the U.S. Fool the U.S. again, shame on Obama. Work for a trustworthy relationship with Iran? No thanks!
-
Undefined position on the family – I may be guilty of not digging deeply enough to find Senator Obama’s position on the traditional family, but I don’t think so. I couldn’t find anything on his website or “blueprint” that says if he supports marriage being as traditionally defined – “one man and one woman” or if he supports “gay marriage.” I’m sure he has said at some point, but I have not found it. I suspect I know the answer, but since I don’t I’ll refrain from speculating. Regardless, if it’s not important enough to him to state clearly, then I have to assume that he doesn’t take the issue seriously enough. No statement on the traditional famly? No thanks!
Filed under: World | Tagged: Barack Obama, Democratic candidates, Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Clinton, Obama for President, Obama's beliefs, Obama's views, politics, President of the United States, Presidential Campaign, Presidential race, Senator Obama, United States election, United States politics
Hi again James,
Yes, your points make sense – if I buy your initial assumption that Iraq was no danger to us. In hindsight, it appears that was likely the case, providing Sadaam did not hide his WMD in some other country – Syria for instance. (Isn’t it interesting that we KNOW he has used some types of WMD in the past, on his own people and on the Kurds, and yet we found NONE! Makes you wonder where it all went to…)
The intel we had at the time (faulty as it seems to have been) gave reason to believe that Iraq was a danger at the time (WMD). I don’t think that George W. Bush or anyone else went in there KNOWING there were not actualy any WMD – I think they trusted their intel, which has proven to be very questionable. It’s one thing to be intentionally deceitful and another to make a mistake based on your best information.
I was in Baghdad 2005-2006, I was a combat medic, in the 3rd INfantry Division, the unit that spearheaded the invasion back in 03. My experiance was one of awakening, and cultural exploration, as well as tears and blood. Here are somethings that I learned, in my 5 years in the army.
I realized that the general population usually has no idea about what is going. I learned that a liberal agenda is always against progress when it comes to conflict, choosing to bury, instead of face the problem at hand. Culturally the arab countries are not weak, but they are very frugal and easily swayed with emotion. I saw this constantly on a day to day bases, in a city bigger than LA, where car bombs and snipers, constantly changed public opinion. Here are some facts that america needs to know.
There is a global threat of terrorism, evident by attacks all around the globe, we needed to take a stand somewhere in the middleast, in order combat this threat, on foreign soil, rather than on the streets of america. The governmen catches 30 to 40- plots on a monthly basis, to attack targets inside the US. These include cases where people have depleted uranium, for a nuclear or dirty attack. The threat I faced in Baghdad wasnt greatly composed of Iraqis, but rather Jihadist from all over the world, who came at the beckoning of their skeik Osama Bin Laden, who pushed the bouderies of Jihad from national to global. These are facts, not items in question, or some agenda waiting to be discussed, and while the world ignores them, they grow stronger.
When I was in Iraq, we confiscated some letters, written from the once powerful Zarqawi (leader of Al qaeda for Baghdad) before he was killed. These letters adressed the population of jihadist in the area, saying, and I quote “take advantage of our time, while the infidels are here on known soil, for soon we will have to travel far distances to reach them”.
we needed no other reason in my mind, to go into Iraq, than the simple fact that Sadaam, supported terrorist operations all around the word, and he did have WMDs, we found them, they just werent the kind we were looking for. Iraq is only the battleground of our choosing, in a war that spans the world. In choosing to go into iraq, bush chose to keep the fight off american soil. This is only in conflict with a global mindset, that cares more for global control, than the good of a certain people.
Josiah
[...] Obama? No thanks! – part two [...]
[...] No thanks! – part two February 13th, 2008 LaTease Rikard wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLet me reiterate – my goal in these [...]
RE: Obama’s stance on iraq. please don’t forget he was not a US senator when he made his initial viewpoints known – so his opinion was non-binding and he had no voting impact on the decision. to say now, 5-6 years later “i told you so” is comparable to me trying to say “i opposed the war, i’m right – the president was wrong” considering i’m just an average us citizen – hindsight is always 20-20. at least the seated senators at the time who either voted for – or against – knew the extent of the facts. Sorry Senator Obama – all of the national security secrets as it relates to possible war are not shared with state-level senators. so to claim you made a good decision at that time is ignorant – because you are citing a decision you made at a time when you were suffering a severe lack of information.
if you believe the president was wrong in believing there were WMD in iraq – then you’re wrong yourself. Saddam said himself he had them, was using them (killing his own citizens and diposing of the bodies in mass graves – which we have found). how soon we forget that chemical and biological weapons are in fact weapons of mass destruction – how a small amount of biological or chemical agents can kill thousands … the basic definition of “WMD” – its the media that is imposing the threshhold of “we have to find an atomic weapon” to justify our action.
And in case you were wondering, purely because i find it humourous, that this has never made the news — The leaders of iraq have asked for supplimental funding (on the scale of billiions of dollars) to clean up RADIOACTIVE WASTE and have scientific studies from international UN-sponored scientists that prove saddam was storing radioactive material in remote areas of the desert – in order to hide it from us. what type of radioactive stuff would you hide? not the stuff for peaceful purposes.. that’s for sure!
during the initial offensive attack of march-may 2003, talk to the us military units in kirkuk – who located, in a large-scale RV parking lot – several mobile chemical laboratories capable of producing chemical toxins for use in munitions. talk to the soldiers who, when securing this site, were caught in an ambush and injured (you can’t talk with the others, because many were killed). They’ll tell you first hand that saddam had chemical and biological weapons capabilities.
one of the biggest misunderstandings is regarding “international backing to go into iraq …” the authorities were granted to take military action against iraq by the UN in 1991….. under Bush sr. If you do a LITTLE research into the genesis of the conflict in the middle east – you’ll realize that the US was not just dealing hastily with a dictator that was just starting to upset the international community … he had been doing it for over a DECADE. the UN authorized military force – and the only reason it wasn’t done earlier was because there were lengthy (and unsuccessful) efforts to deal with the problem diplomatically.
people who equate Iraq to North Korea and try to say “oh, we’re going to invade north korea now too, right?” well, If north korea continues to test delivery systems like they are currently, and continue to develop their nuclear weapons program – which they admit they are doing in the news (again, i’d recommend people read the INTERNATIONAL news – bbc and such) – for over a decade? i’d hope SOMEONE would make sure they didn’t do what they say they are trying to do…
And finally – for those of you that think that a president – regardless of party – has such autonomous authority to wage a war – and you have this insane desire to say its one person’s fault — just remember: Congress approved it – Congress funded it – and Congress continued to (and continues to) support it. you hear media reps of minority voices saying its wrong , etc… but then they (senators and congressmen) continue to vote FOR it – FOR funding – and FOR finishing what we have started.
who elects congress? we the people do. so when you want someone to blame – you can either do what the news, saturday night live, the tonight show, or other media outlets do – and pick a fall guy like the president and claim “its all his fault” – argue for impeachment – citing that “he got us into this”- or you could look in the mirror and realize that your vote (or lack there of) is the real reason we have a congress like we do. YOU voted, through your representatives, for the war in iraq -and for the funding to continue. YOU voted to entrust our senators and congressmen to make educated decisions based on facts.
do you really think you know more about the intentions of a dictator and his military capabilites – and the possible global ramifications of his actions – than our national level leadership? If so – you need to run for office. even with as much research that i have done – and things which i have experienced first hand – i’m objective enough to admit i don’t know all the contributing factors which our national leadership takes into account when making such a monumental and historic decision. why is the typical american so quick to assume they are smarter than our national leaders who have an inordinate amount of information more than they do?
my sourcing: i spent 24 months straight in iraq. i’ve seen the mass graves with my own eyes. i’ve seen the chemical labs with my own eyes. i read the published environmental study published stating they had a severe environmental problem with radioactive waste contaminating the water supply of remote villages. i’ve lost subordinate soldiers to terrorist attacks – and i’ve met with leaders in iraq on a national and provincial level who are on the verge of TEARS OF HAPPINESS that we are there. they are amazed that people from the united states care more about them than some of their own citizens care about their own country. they understand where they were before, where they are now, and the possible ramifications of a pre-mature redeployment of our security forces.
Its sad to see a presidential candidate say – in absolute terms – that regardless of imputs from the chairman of the joint chief of staff, regardless of requests from the president / national leadership of iraq – regardless of the possibility that our actions may spark a civi war and cause hundreds of thousands of more people to die – that they absolutely will immediately redeploy our forces if elected president. I’m afraid of any presidential candidate that claims to be able to predict the future and has made up their mind even without all current information.
if you know which candidate said that in a recent debate – then you’re in an extreme minority of people actually doing their homework in preparation of the upcoming election.
do your homework, make an educated decision – and VOTE. then you can complain when things don’t go your way.
1. Obama’s FORESIGHT in October 2000 was 20/20
2. Saddam was evil but he was neither stupid enough nor crazy enough to attack the USA for a number of reasons including the fact that the USA spent more on military than the next 12 countries combined. Even if, indeed, Saddam had WMDs would not be likely to use them against the USA?
3. If 19 hijackers (none of them Iraqis) were willing to give up their lives to harm Americans , What would be the effect of the USA invading and occupying an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA.
4. GW Bush put his finger on arguably the worst possible reaction to 9/11.
5. Obama was able to see the forest despite the trees. Too many people let the trees confuse them.