Issue #1
Barack's Voting Record
You can look at key votes here where Barack did not vote on two key issues in his THREE years as US Senator. He did not vote on a 9/11 commission report and on the Alberto Gonzales Judgeship.
His total voting record: He voted on pretty much every issue when first elected (almost always with the party), not voting on
| Vote 96: H R 1268: Byrd Amdt. No. 464; To express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. | Not Voting | No | Yes |
| Vote 173: S RES 193: S.Res. 193; A resolution expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005. | Not Voting | Yes | Yes |
| Vote 134: On the Nomination: Confirmation Richard A. Griffin, of Michigan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge | Not Voting | Yes | Yes |
| Vote 265: On the Nomination: Confirmation Brian Edward Sandoval, of Nevada, To Be United States District Judge | Not Voting | Yes | Yes |
| Vote 115: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S.22; Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006 | Not Voting | Yes | No |
| Vote 231: On the Nomination: Confirmation Kimberly Ann Moore, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge | Not Voting | Yes | Yes |
In June of 2007 his votes start getting tricky, then he begins not voting, up until present, and there are large blocks of "not voting" which is what I'm assuming John Edwards is referring to in the video. Some have speculated that he is trying to be "under the radar" and without opinion so that he can conspire and than transpire his ultimate plot for a socialist society...
Based on his votes, he definitely is present, he does vote on other bills and amendments that day, but is selective. This definitely points to pandering. He is very careful in judge nominations, but you can see he has a pattern in abstaining from those votes. He also stays out of quarrels between two cities - for instance a San Diego and San Francisco fight over money. The majority of his non-voting on issues is a complete riddle. It's possible he's working on his Presidential campaign and is unfamiliar so therefore doesn't vote, but why not just vote with the party?
Ah, for the first time ever I am given a clear answer from the NYT! Of course it's still partisan and acting as if Obama's fence sitting and disapproving face as he takes the "present" vote is a good thing. This is not the time where fence sitting is acceptable behavior. Pick a side, or you'll find your ass begins to get real sore.
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
n the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.
Conclusion: Inexperienced. Indecisive. Inconclusive about the controversial issues. Not a doer, and talker.
Issue #2: Obama's Muslim background
Information found at Snopes.com reveals that he was brought up in Muslim schools in Jakarta, however, also in Catholic schools. It contain excerpts of Barack's writings, and his mother's faith, and I find it highly condescending.
Conclusion: Obama has probably been exposed to Islam more than any other President and is probably more sympathetic to the religion than any previous President, but this does not make him Muslim. He's definitely chosen Christianity, which has been a difficult path as well...
Issue #3: Obama's Christian/Racist Issues
We're familiar with the fact that Reverend Wright did say these things, and put these rants on the videos sold in the church store - these weren't hidden sermons.
Cone writes: "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by demonic forces...Ironically, the man who enslaves another enslaves himself...To be free to do what I will in relation to another is to be in bondage to the law of least resistance. This is the bondage of racism. Racism is that bondage in which whites are free to beat, rape, or kill blacks. About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death."Obama also attended the 1,000,000 man march which was organized by Islam leader Louis Farakkhan who has been known to be anti-Semitic and referred to as the "Black Hitler" accepting that term. Other controversial statements have been said regarding white people, but I don't trust the media in reporting things within context. Barack Obama has tried to distance himself from Farakkhan after receiving public endorsements.
Conclusion: Most black men have probably been exposed to these philosophies. What I'm interested in is how it will affect their service to their country. Over-exposure to hatred rather than aligning yourself with peaceful messages is always concerning. If a man who was running for President chummed it up with Hitler for 3 years and they had tagged each other in Facebook, I'd consider it a problem.
Issue #4: Michelle Obama: Proud of Her Country?
She said it. There's no doubt. But is there a racist streak? Is she a USA hater like Wright? She is a smart woman from the South side of Chicago, Princeton undergrad, Harvard JD. But she has had an obsession with race - her undergrad thesis being "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" discussing racial issues within the Ivy League school. She described her experience as being one where she felt like an outsider - probably disenfranchised because for the first time in her life, she was a minority in her community. She was also 21. Who cares. She's definitely liberal. Just reading her bio I grew armpit hair and started screaming "Bush lied kids died!"
Conclusion: Wife is an asset in many ways, the same way Hillary is an asset to Bill, only straight. Hillary favors gays and women, Michelle panders to the blacks, immigrants and the poor. Either way, they are straight up LIBS! Pull out your communist flag and start praying to Mao!
MY OPINION ON THIS VIDEO
I like that someone is finally trying to get people to pull their heads out of the donkey and start thinking about who they are voting for. Obama's team, his books, and the media are doing a great snow job on the entire American populate. What do we know about this man? Try finding FACTS backed up by friends and family (other than power grabbing wife). Really hard to find. It's like this guy is some hot guy you meet in a club only to find out he's lying about his amazing Professional athlete career! I've been spending a lot of free time researching and I'm not a fan of what I'm finding. The rumors are true. We really don't know much about the man we want to make President. We just have his word. Hope.
Posts
15 comments:
Great post, Bree. I really wish more people paid attention to things like, oh, I don't know... a candidate's politics before voting for him... but no. That would require thinking. And possibly even reading. And who wants to do that?
I'm having a hard time this election because my party (Libertarian) just nominated a candidate with a record that doesn't really support the party's philosophy. Why? Because he's more moderate and more likely to get (Republican) votes. Um... LAME.
He's still the best candidate, but this is the dilemma: Do I waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate whose politics I don't completely support? Or do I cast my ballot for the "lesser of two evils" with the hope that enough like-minded people might tip the balance of a metaphoric ship that's going to sink either way? Or write-in Ron Paul?
Ugh. I guess it doesn't matter.
(Sorry about the rant).
It's interesting that your party's man really is Ron Paul, yet he's a Republican. If he switched his stance on the Iraq war he'd be a shoo in on the Republican ticket - he understands economics, which is why he has such a loyal following.
Oh, and about your dilemma, this is one you ride out a bit until you find out how close the race is. If it's super close, your vote kind of counts (you're in CA - we're Obama country). If it's a landslide, vote "present".
dearie,
in a proper democracy a non-vote is a formal
privilege a representative strategically uses to (1) snub bad legislation or (2) redress legislation if one's vote stands to help move the bill. in addition, contemporary partisan politics is structured to murk lobbyist's agendas by staggering their representatives voting records. this is no mystery. americans, with a twisted religious fervor for right and left, seem to be so tied up in the figment of these false-parties, that they've pledged their loyalty exclusively to the party, and not in the content and character of the men responsible for preserving economic freedom.
...your rants on men and fashion, however, are rich, well-informed, and entertaining.
Yeah, the great thing about Ron Paul is that he won't change his stance. On anything. Libertarianism is a simple philosophy and the LP is supposed to be the "party of principle," but we nominated Bob Barr? He's way more Republican than Ron Paul.
I'm not entirely sure what the "travsplan" guy above means by "figment of these false-parties," but I'm pretty sure I agree. In my mind, and on the spectrum of personal and economic liberty, there's very little to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats. The only real difference is the manner in which they infringe on our freedom.
Bree-
You missed a big one: he has been to the country we are at war in only ONCE, and for two days at that. He's ready to sit down and talk with the leaders of Iran and has yet to talk to General Petraus.
Which wreaks of arrogance. He has a violent opinion against this war but has not taken the time to visit Iraq or talk to those flighting and planning the war.
Even Angelina Jolie visited Iraq before voicing her opinion on it.(strange how the media glided over that story)
travsplan-
the mystery was why he didn't vote on over 100 issues in the course of 1 year. That's a lot of non-votes that even members of his party and media are perplexed by.
Please don't call me dearie. It's condescending and rude and sounds like something my grandmother would have called me. I appreciate the compliment on my rantings on "men and fashion" but it implies that women are only allowed to talk about men and fashion and have no place in politics.
My ranting on Obama was a direct response to an email in which I received a video in which I felt contained too many half-truths and wanted to investigate. I did, I found the truth, and I published it, and tried to objectively record what I believed. I appreciate your response, but I also believe that if I elect a politician, taking a stance isn't difficult on a lot of issues, like, giving support to UK bombing victims. Waste of time? Perhaps. A sister nation afflicted with terrorism at a time of war? I'd say the world could use our verbal support.
Yes - he should visit Iraq. With McCain. That would be a good docudrama. For Southpark.
I agree that there is a degree of "figment of false parties" to some extent and that we've lost our original sense of politics in America. Our parties are fractured with varying interests. What does happen with a multi-party system is far more frightening as fringe elements enter the playing field, and then the Nazi party gets power with 22% of the vote.
dearest,
point taken. but no reason to get your feathers ruffled over "dearie." i figured that an intelligent, articulate woman as yourself would prefer clarity: which is what your investigation dismissed. that you jumped on your computer and found "the truth" I find fascinating; but what struck me was the fact that most of arguments put forth against obama were a bit too "ad hominum" (against the man). if, for example, someone wanted to do the same to mitt romney, they'd say he's a theocrat who belieives he will become god. and then express the danger of a potential presidential candidate who thinks he's god... out of context and aimed as a personal attack to distract from the real issues at hand.
one more thing: Islam is closer to ancient christianity than is modern christianity. in fact it was the prophet muhammad who saw fit to gather some of the lost israelites, jew and christians, in order to protect them from nicene christianity-- the same christianity right-wing-fox-news zionists today propogate.
It's because he stole Christianity from the trade routes. I am aware of how he founded Islam, slaughter and all.
Muhammad stole Christianity from the trade routes?
After all the work Nibley's done, you go and say something like that. BYU doesn't teach that. Who told you that? McCain? Bush? That is entirely false.
Bro-
Of course you would refer to Hugh Nibley, the famous BYU Communist. Although I admire his thorough academic research for FARMS, one cannot deny his antiquated and communal views on society. You must be his kin. He also said this, (a topic we just studied in Sunday School last week):
"The liberal is unpretentions and open-minded, just like everybody else-- yet he forms a jealously guarded clique for the exploitation of the general public, and distinguishes sharply between the intellectual class to which he belongs as a special elite and the layman, who is expected to support him and seek instruction at his feet. ... Nehor the Great Liberal and lover of mankind [who believes in the salvation of all humannkind] lost his temper and killed [Gideon]." -Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon
To your argument regarding Islam, of course I learned about Mohammed at BYU - my world's religion class. We compared his Koran's creation to the Biblical creation - he got some things wrong in the oral retelling of the process. He was a merchant with his Uncle and met many Christians and Jews during his trips - specifically a Christian Monk named Bahira who foretold his prophecy. I find Islam to be actually more closely related to traditional Christian Gnostic doctrine, and if you read any of the "lost gospels", you can see many parallels between their universalism and I think the Koran sounds like the Gospel of Thomas (which makes little sense). Allah/Mohammed refers to seven heavens (2.29) which is in the Apocalypse of Paul . Or Thomas 17 vs Koran 7:195. It's a whole new blog topic.
Hugh Nibley and other Mormon scholars have suggested he may have been a prophet due to his uniting a nomadic people who were idol worshipers. This is true, but it's also a great political move as well. Is he a Prophet? No. He did not receive revelation. The Koran was handed to him by an angel and not translated. He never received prophecy thereafter and he believed he was the last in his line. Not the true gospel. He may have been divinely inspired for purposes of uniting people, but he is hardly a Prophet, and I think he definitely stole from the Christians. The are not adjunct religions (Koran 2.120, 5.51)
dearest,
we seem agree on a few things. i still think, however, it is too early to judge whether or not muhammad was inspired. that, as you mentioned, early islam and gnostic christianity share common archetypes in their mythology, coupled with the fact that since the nicene ordeal, christians, jews, and christian-jews, had been fleeing rome for at least a generation, sugguests overlap. and although lacking, say, a formal priesthood body, prophets of old have often acted from the pulpit of a small righteous clan...
of course ed meyer's comparison of muhammad and smith would necessarily put smith's prophetic legacy far above muhammad's in light of doctrine, organization, etc., but the comparison is unfair-- what other prophet can boast of the latter-day restoration?
to call nibley a communist, though... c'mon. are you really that republican?
I was exaggerating. Consecrationist. Which is totally fair if we have a ruling theocrat that is able to fairly distribute amongst all and everyone labors and toils to their best ability based on one higher principle, LOVE.
Speaking of love - go to an online Koran and search the word "love". It appears 82 times - and many references are not refering to loving one another but the love of an object and how evil that is. While the God of the OT is seemingly harsher than Jesus Christ and his message of unconditional love as well as his sacrifice of pure love, the OT does teach love far more than the Koran. Deut, Prov, Songs, all talk about the Lord loving his people, while countless stories talk about love in all 3 greek senses of the word.
T.O. - I knew I should have trusted Sara K when she said you were really funny and nice. She's one of the best judges of character I know.
ahh! i've been found out!
"but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death." This ignorant statement in reference to blacks made by reverend Whright was really offensive to me as an american and as a white individual. I grew up in the inner city or "ghetto" and realized that basically the reason most of the people lived there was due to stupid liberal band-aid welfare measures. The people are going to take what is given to them as a free hand-out and take it for granted and expect more and then blame whites for their situation, lame. It is like a spoiled kid who gets an allowance without working for it. Does that kid appreciate the money he was given, no he goes and spends it on candy and then throws a tantrum when his parents refuse to give him any more money til next week. If the kid had worked for the money he would appreciate it and not take it for granted and be more careful about what he spends it on. This is like our welfare system, if we take the crutch away these people will be forced to work for something and they will be more succesful in the long run, they will appreciate things more and improve their own condition not expect someone else to do it for them. Secondly if I were African American I would be insulted by liberal patch measures such as affirmitive action becuase it is basically saying that they can't do it on their own and thet they need help to get a job or get into a good college or whatever which is total crap, they are just as smart and capable as a white person. Also I am sick of the excuse that the public education system in the inner cities is crap, i am a product of that educational system and I know first hand that if a person really wants to learn they can despite their circumstances, there are great public libraries and some of the best teachers I had were teachers in the public school system. Also we had advanced placement classes and International Baccalaureate programs in our high school so don't give me that crap. Also I know first hand African Americans who worked hard and studied and did well in school and college and are succesful so don't tell me that they can't do it or that the whites are holding them back from anything. When are people going to stop making excuses and start making changes for themselves instead of blaming someone else because of their race like Hitler did.
Post a Comment