Followers of the 2008 American Presidential campaign have discovered various things about the candidates along the way. John Edwards got a roughly $400 haircut and plastic surgery. Mitt Romney--had he won the election--would have been the first Mormon President. Hillary Clinton is not used to losing, and is a bad sport when she does. John McCain has a temper and he is one of the top candidates for the Republicans in this Republican-hostile electoral season.
And Barack Obama is the overwhelming choice for American President among people across the world.
From Europeans to African tribesmen, from Hamas to the Farc, Obama has the endorsement of many foreigners. If the election were global, Obama would undoubtedly win against McCain.
For many in Europe and the West, support for Obama is largely due to 'race,' although many such supporters of his would be loath to acknowledge that is the primary reason why they have chosen him. They shouldn't be so ashamed that 'race' is the major factor in their decision making. A 'black' President would be enormously helpful as serving as a role model for young 'black' children, encouraging them to succeed and not get drawn into crime and gangsterism. A 'black' President would be a step toward proving to older 'blacks' that progress is being made to the end of eradicating racism and that the glass ceiling is no longer there (although prospective 'blacks' may still face more obstacles than their 'white' counterparts). If both candidates had the same beliefs, values, and ideas, but one was 'white' and the other 'black,' the 'black' candidate would stand the greater chance of unifying the country and gaining greater respect from the world (along with tossing down the gauntlet for them to elect/place a member of their most oppressed 'racial' minority into their highest office). But the candidates do not have the same beliefs, values, and ideas. And because of that, Obama is not a good candidate.
Which leads to Hamas' and Farc's endorsements of Senator Obama. Across the Muslim world, many believe Mr. Obama to be a Muslim because his father was. In that, they are as deluded as some 'white,' blue-collar Appalachians. However, this misunderstanding results in widespread support of Obama in that region of the world (not least because his Democratic rival is a woman). But Mr. Obama is not a Muslim. He is, however, naive in his ideas about how to engage with more extreme Muslim states.
He is as idiotic as former President Carter is believing that using 'soft power' with Hamas will lead to peace between Israel and its Arab/Iranian neighbors. Protestations to the contrary, he did not state that he would talk with Hamas only when they recognized Israel and used solely peaceful methods for achieving their goal (something which Senator McCain did state). Similarly with Iran, Senator Obama is prepared to talk with them, President to President (or President to Ayatollah) in high level talks which could be seen as a propaganda coup.
His statement that he would be willing to bomb Pakistan, while in general a decent view, was extremely moronic because he made those comments when Pakistan was in turmoil over the Red Mosque incident, and it wasn't assured that the Musharaff government would survive. By making that threat at such a critical point, Mr. Obama showed himself to be extraordinarily inexperienced in foreign affairs, supposedly his strong suit. (As for domestic affairs, his lethargy in wooing the Latino vote and his miniscule trip to Puerto Rico--winning a primary in a Latino-majority territory might turn some Latinos in the 50 states into supporters--show that he is inexperienced there, too).
Obama's idea to withdraw from Iraq upon becoming President all but sets a timetable for the Islamists in Iraq. Another sign of his naivete, if Iraq can be made a success--and it can be--that would show that an Arab, Muslim country could thrive, be an ally of the United States; and renew respect for the American military and American will and determination. Withdrawing would give the impression that the United States is weak, can be defeated, and would give rise to radical Islamist governments following Sharia not only in Iraq, but across the Muslim world. Look at Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and, more recently, Lebanon. Each was touted as a Palestinian or Hezbollah victory and an Israeli defeat, not as Israel being kind and letting Palestinians govern themselves or not bombing civilians en masse to wipe out Hezbollah. And look at how Hamas and Hezbollah have either fully taken over government (as in Gaza) or now wield major influence in government (in Lebanon). If the United States withdraws from Iraq, that is what will happen to Iraq, the United States, and the Muslim world. A massive lack of foresight on Obama's part.
Senator Obama is one the most leftist, liberal politicians in Washington, which would explain his support in parts of Latin America and the Middle East. In Africa, they are supporting 'one of their own.' And as for the rest of the world, he draws attention because people in those regions are amazed that the United States may be poised to give the highest political position on Earth to a 'black' man.
The latter two are completely acceptable, but it is the former--his support from Islamist and Communist criminals--that should throw up red flags for American citizens.
And it they--the adult, American citizenry--and not foreigners around the world, that have an actual say in choosing whether or not Senator Obama become President Obama.
--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.
Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.
| Tag this post with: | |||||||
 Delicious |
 Digg |
 Technorati |
 reddit |
 Facebook |
 StumbleUpon |
 Furl |
 blinklist |
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.
Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.
Posts
2 comments:
Good article on O'Bama.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend years ago. He was from India, and he remarked how everyone he knew 'loved' Jimmy Carter as an American President, and hated Ronald Reagan. I was a bit perplexed, but then as I considered it - man's nature is covetous at heart. The rest of the world 'loved' Jimmy Carter because he tore down America. They hated Ronald Reagan, because he built it up. Thus, I understand why the world 'loves' Mr. Obama. He will continue the Jimmy Carter tradition of weakening America - thus making the rest of the world feel larger. Even though the end result might mean more misery and violence (e.g., consider the 'blowback' from Jimmy Carter's short service: worldwide stagflation, the destruction of a reasonably democratic and modern Iran, the spread of islamic terrorism, the spread of the communist disease to Latin America, etc... Still, the world 'loved' Jimmy Carter because America was brought down a peg).
I can understand some of the 'pluses' you put forth for Mr. Obama. Nonetheless, we should never vote for/against anyone because of the amount of melanin they might have in their skin. Geraldine Ferraro was correct when she said that Mr. Obama would not even be considered as a candidate if he wasn't somewhat blackish. The man has no qualifications, no experience - other than being a professional yakker ('community activist'? ... 'facilitator in Collegial discussion groups'? .... How have the mighty falling if these are the dregs we settle for as leaders of most powerful Nation in the world). He's also a Marxist with an unnatural zeal for promoting/protecting abortion. His 'friends' are from a rogue's gallery of disreptuable misfits. And his 20 year association with a racist church and 'preacher' is enough to make a skunk vomit... But he does have a nice smile, and a smooth voice... Yes, quite the tough decision.
Oh - one more thing.
Yes, it is true that Mr. Obama may perhaps represent a 'oppressed' Group (that is, if we want to consider, 1/2 white liberal, 1/2 Kenyan as an 'oppressed' Group). But the fact is, at least since the time of Nimrod -- we all have been oppressed. Its man's nature. The Irish were oppressed. Blacks oppress other Blacks (Africa still is plunged in the depths of tribalism). The Han Chineses oppress other Chinese. The Aztecs oppressed the other native Amerindians (which is why they so willingly joined up with Cortez). Etcetera, and Etcetera. No one has a monopoly on oppression - even though we try to rewrite history and claim that this is so. That is, the current revisionist slant is: All things Western European are evil, and everyone else is good. Wallowing in self-pity, and looking backwards at oppression - is a waste of time. Look forward to Christ. Remembering who we are: Sinners in need of repentance and a Saviour. None of us have done good - and pretending that all of our problems are due to 'oppression' is useless drivel.
Post a Comment