Barack Obama: Savior or Socialist?

I know we’ve been having some fun swapping barbs about political candidates, lately. But I’d like to actually speak in earnest about Senator Barack Obama. I know that there are a lot of people out there who think he is really something – that maybe he is a shining beacon of hope for this country.

Given his charm, good looks and eloquence as an orator, I am not surprised that many feel that he is a breath of fresh air. That perhaps we have someone special in our midst’s. But I’m going to ask you to strip away all those lovely attributes and actually look at what he stands for. Not the poetic language he uses to couch it in, but the actual issues.

Would it surprise you to know that his platform and his ‘to do’ list is almost identical to Hillary Clinton’s? Yes, it really is. Free college, free , pull out the troops, stop funding the military, raise taxes, pour more billions into a the broken educational system, more entitlements, driver’s licenses to foreign nationals who reside illegally in this country. Yep, he’s for all that. Same as Hillary, except moreso. So, for those of you who love Barack but hate Hillary, I’d have to conclude that it is a matter of personality, not issues.

Sure, he likes to use the pretty words, change, peace on earth, what America could be…starry eyes, presidential poses, a preacher’s passionate fire – but those are just words. They are not accomplishments, they are not actions, they are just dressing up the issues that both he and Hillary share. He simply doesn’t have the baggage that Hillary has. Think about it – if Hillary were a junior senator from the midwest, who was an unknown quantity and didn’t have a record or the spouse she currently has – you’d see very little difference between the two. The fact that she has all that ’stuff’ and it’s been published for years in books, newspapers and television shows just means you know who she really is. In Barack’s case, not so much. He’s just a nice, clean-cut guy from the midwest, energetic, intelligent, blah, blah.

Well, there are a couple of things that I’d like to share about him. First of all, there is this little gem – is it impossible to believe that maybe Mr. Obama would agree to some of these ‘goals’ from such avid supporters? I don’t know about you, but my religion has never been able to demand that federal buildings carry certain items on the menu of their cafeterias or provide time/places for which I may pray. Seems a little one-sided doesn’t it?

Then there is this

Yes indeed, a Che Guevara flag donning Obama’s Texas campaign office. When asked about it, Obama’s people said it maybe was ‘inappropriate.” Excuse me? Inappropriate? The man refuses to wear an American flag lapel button but this is okay? Does he know who/what Che was? If not, let me give you some highlights:

Guevara joined Castro’s revolutionary Cuban army in 1956 as a top commander and Castro’s personal physician. He helped Castro topple the regime in Havana in 1959.
As Castro’s right-hand man he ordered the execution of hundreds of people while in charge of the La Caba prison. He said about the mass killings of innocent people,

“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”

another memorable quote:
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine – this is what our soldiers must become.”

and:

“Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier into an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary.”

I find it difficult to believe that a man who was educated in an Ivy League school would be unaware of Guevara or his political stance – but maybe he doesn’t. But if he doesn’t, should he be in a position to lead the free world?

Then there is the matter of the global poverty act. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? Sounds altruistic and humane? Yeah, it sounds good, until you stop to consider the following:

It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

“It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.”
Cliff Kincaid (Accuracy in Media) published critique of the plan stated, the adoption (of global poverty act) could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

Kincaid said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”
The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

Mr. Obama has said of the bill:

“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces,” Obama said. “It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

“Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere,” he continued.

“It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day,” a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Now, I’m a little confused – I thought we weren’t supposed to be the babysitters of the world. It’s not our business that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were executing people, torturing people, and all their other many violations of human rights. Yet, somehow now it’s our job to feed the world and he wants a law that will require the United States to take nearly 1% of its Gross National Product to feed the rest of the world, above and beyond what we already give to foreign aid. This country gives more aid, financial and otherwise than any other country in the world – not to mention private charities to which millions of Americans give to daily. Yet, now our taxes (which will likely have to be raised to pay for this and many other programs) must go toward more of this?

So, which is it? Are we to stay out of things and mind our own business or take care of the whole world. Oh and making the United Nations an integral part of this is even better, don’t you think? They’ve been wanting to dictate what America can and cannot do for years now – and soon they’ll be running the country if this sort of thing comes to pass.

And last but not least, there was that statement that Mrs. Obama made a few days ago in which she stated that it was the first time in her adult life where she felt proud of her country. Okay, excuse me? The first time? Really? I mean, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that she could have been proud of before her husband, gave all these people ‘hope.’ And while we’re on the topic – are we hopeless? When did Americans become hopeless. I think that Americans are the most hopeful, positive people in the world but apparently, I’m wrong and we’re all filled with despair and longing for someone to come along and make us feel safe and loved. And apparently that person’s name is Barack Obama.

It’s making me a bit uncomfortable to realize that I am beginning to see parallels between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s. The husband is charming and charismatic, the wife is strong, angry, controlling, assertive. While Mrs. Obama has more finesse than Hillary ever did – she really still does remind me of her. The power couple, poised for success, poised for national stardom. It’s a little spooky.

But I have to ask – what exactly has this man done – period? I mean what accomplishments does he have that even give anyone an idea that he could lead the country? Truly, what are they? I’ve heard people asked about this several times and no one seems to be able to point to anything. Not one accomplishment – he’s a first term senator who thinks he’s ready to lead the country. Based on what? Giving everybody hand outs and placebos to make them believe that their lives are somehow better by having the government even more involved in their daily lives? Who would hope for that?

Personally, I think he is a socialist who comes in a nice, trendy package. But no matter how pretty wrapping might be – what’s inside isn’t any better than what Hillary has to offer. And if you believe otherwise, I’m afraid you are kidding yourself, my friend. I really do.