Weblog

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

  • ENERGY POLICY !

    ENERGY POLICY !

         Barack Obama to this day is a strong advocator of corn-based ethanol which is proven to be an energy intensive crop.  Research done by the Caito Institute estimates that it takes approximately seven barrels of OIL to produce eight barrels of ethanol.  This is not exactly going green.  The Co-Op America group has affirmed that ethanol is not a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  This finding is backed up by a study from the University of Minnesota in  2006 and an earlier study in 2005 by BioScience. 

         The first time Obama spoke of advancing the use of ethanol was on the campaign trail in Iowa; which happens to be the corn capitol of the country.  Ethanol is not a solution to oil dependency since it uses a considerable amount of oil in its production.  In 2006, Obama voted in favor of $8 billion in corn subsidies alone.  Eight billion dollars would've gone far into other fields of energy sources such as wind... tidal... solar.  The only touting point to ethanol is that it is a renewable resource.  Other than that it still compromises the ozone layer and still produces greenhouse gases.

  • N A F T A !

    N A F T A !

          Obama has boasted in the past that "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."  Yet, the Associated Press reported on February 26, 2007, after a review of Obama's record, and discovered "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the U.S. should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponents call for tariffs would spark a trade war."  The Associated Press and Illinois records show that NAFTA has been very profitable for the state of Illinois; his home state.

         In September of 2005, Obama voted against the Commerce Appropriations Bill which would have prohibited trade negotiation from weakening the U.S. laws that accomodate safeguards from unfair trade practices by foreign countries.  This bill would have done a lot for preventing the outsourcing of American jobs as well as ended a corporate practice known as 'pole vaulting'; which avoids worker protections such as 'minimum wage' and the 'right to organize'.

         So, Obama's comments during the Cleveland debate were misleading when he stated that he would end NAFTA if it were to prove harmful for Americans and their jobs.

         The Canadians even reported and verified that an Obama advisor met with them after the debate so that they would not get the idea that Obama planned to pull out of NAFTA.  The advisor, Goolesby, told the Canadians that it was just rhetoric... swagger.  The conversation was recorded by the Canadian staffer, Joseph DeMora, during which the consular general was also present.  David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said that the meeting didn't happen, yet, it did happen.  I don't even know what that means.  The Canadians have not altered their account of the event of changed their positioning.  The Canadians fear that Obama is a protectionist.

  • IRAQ WAR !

    THE IRAQ WAR !

         Obama likes to state how he has been opposed to the Iraq War since it's inception, but, that is not entirely true.  The Iraq War began while he was still in the Illinois state senate and he was not "privy to detailed information or Senate Intelligence briefings".  If he were in the U.S. Senate at the time and did have that information, do you think he would have voted in favor of the war?  Many democratic Senators have regretted voting for it post facto upon future findings that showed the Intelligence briefings were mistaken.  John Kerry being one of them.

         In January of 2005, Obama Obama voted to approve all of the Republican war appropriations.  This totals over $300 billion.  Obama also voted in favor of Condoleeza Rice taking the Secretary of State position in spite of the fact that she was sided with Bush in promoting false justifications for us going into a war with Iraq.  Thirteen of Obama's colleagues  voted against Condoleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State.

         In March of 2006, Obama campaign for Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut calling Lieberman his "mentor" and, while at a Democratic dinner, asked that those present offer financial assistance to Lieberman's campaign and vote for him.  Lieberman's opponent was Ned Lamont; a fierce opponent and challenger to the Iraq War.  If Obama is so against the war, why did he rally for someone who favored the war?  Lieberman on several occasions has been referred to as "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War"

         In July of 2005, Obama voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act.  The Patriotic Act is a Republican anti-terrorism tool that has produced the worst attack on American civil liberties allowing for the eavesdropping on Americans via telephone conversations and e-mails.

         With anti-war sentiment was on the rise, Obama stated that he could remove troops from Iraq in 2009; he has affirmed this recently in several debates.  But, in September of 2007 during a New Hampshire debate, Obama refused to commit to removing our troops from Iraq by 2013.  The debate was moderated by Tim Russert.  Even his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Powers, told the BBC that it would be nearly impossible to remove our troops in 2009; further adding that the situation would have to be looked at again in that year to re-evaluate the situation. 

  • U N I T Y !

    U N I T Y !

         Barack Obama has bolstered in numerous speeches across America that he is the one that can "unite" the country; bring us together in accord for a common good.  In his own words, Obama wishes to "bridge differences" ; he wishes to "reach out to everybody" .  But, there are numerous frayed threads that unravel this mission statement of "unity".

         On February 19th, Obama stated that he would assemble "a working majority for change.  That's how we win elections, that's how we will govern".  Assembling a "working majority" could be done if he were to win a substantial victory in November, bringing with him several Democratic Senators as well as some fifteen, or even more, Democratic House members, then, he would have a 1964 style mandate.  With this style of mandate, he could push his programs through with almost no Republican votes.  But, this would not be "bridging differences".  This is the same strategy that was used by George Bush and Karl Rove; a fifty percent plus one strategy.  This is not bi-partisan nor is it unifying, but, happens to be a very polarizing way to govern.

         One bit of dichotomy that undermines his call for "unity" has been his mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  The anti-American rhetoric and racial comments of his pastor has cost him a good percentage of undecided voters as well as Independents.  It's hard to buy into the "unity" platform when his mentor preaches against solidarity, yet, Obama continues to hold him in favorable regard.  The church should be the perfect place for unity and brotherhood.

         But, the duplicity continues.  On March 20th, Thursday morning, Malik Zulu Shabazz told FOX News that his group, The New Black Panther Party (NBPP), endorsed and supported Obama for President of the U.S.  Malik Shabazz is a recognized radical with racial as well as anti-American viewpoints.  The NBPP endorsement was posted on Obama's website.  By the posting of this endorsement, it show that it was tolerated.  Why would someone who calls for "unity" post an endorsement of a group whose views are disruptive and separatist?  The NBPP has a history of being anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Jewish.  On Tuesday, March 24th, following his speech on the issue of race in America, the endorsement of the NBPP was pulled from the Obama website.  Why was this endorsement tolerated enough to post it on his campaign website in the first place following the Rev. Wright backlash?

         I discovered something recently that, also, underscores his message of "unity".  On the internet networking site, MySpace, there are a number of public discussion groups listed under the heading of Government & Politics.  I perused the first ten pages of results and saw everything ranging from Socialists to Republicans; from McCain supporters to Clinton supporters.  But, the thing that caught my eye was some of the pro-Obama groups within the first ten pages of results.  The following is the name of these groups and their tagline that is displayed beneath:

    1.)  DOWN WITH HILLARY (public group)
    If you don not want Hillary Clinton as your next President, join this group and campaign against the carpetbagging Communist!

    2.)  BARRACK FOR PRESIDENT (public group)
    I hate Hillary Clinton!

    3.)  HILLARESISTANCE (public group)
    Join the Hillaresistance!  Freedom fighters
    against Hillary!  Join us in our hatred!

    4.)  KEEP HILLARY AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE 

     F**k you, Hillary!

    5.)  DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S HILLARY CLINTON  HATERS REPUBLIC (public group)
    A safe haven for the haters of Hillary Clinton
    to share in our one true hatred!

    6.)  HILLARY CLINTON IS A C*NT!

        
    These are actual groups on MySpace and those are the actual titles of the groups and their taglines.  These are the persons who want to vote and elect Obama to the Presidency.  These are the voters who support his mission statement of "hope" .... of "change" .... and, "unity".  I can't find any possible potential for "unity"  in the words that these groups have chosen to describe their public discussion groups.  All I see is hatred, name calling, and defamation.  And this, from Obama voters, who feel this country needs to be "united". . . . voters who feel this country needs "change".  This is not the way you go about it.

         As long as public groups and organizations continue their anti-rhetoric and hatred, nothing will "change".  As long as Obama has supporters like Rev. Wright, the NBPP, and voters like the ones from those internet public groups mentioned above.... "unity" cannot happen.  And, "hope" is reduced to nothing more than futility.

  • THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE !

    THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE !

         Obama's surrogates as well as his campaign have commented and suggested that for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, the superdelegates would have to "overturn the will of the people".  This is FALSE.  The race for the nomination is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split and both candidates need the superdelegates to win.

         The Obama campaign has put forth a determined public relations effort to try and persuade the American voters that the election is over.  They have further stated that if the superdelegates side with Hillary and she ends up with the nomination, then, the superdelegates are "overturning the will of the people".  This is FALSE.  It is worth noting that while Obama's campaign is making this argument to the media, they are, at the same time, courting these same superdelegates, systematically.  They are courting them because they need the superdelegates to win as well.  The "will of the people" is split; the race is virtually tied.  The candidates are
    separated by less then 1% of the 27 million plus votes cast so far.

        
    An incremental advantage of less than 1% of ballots cast is not enough for the superdelegates to alter the rules in the middle of the game.  The rules governing the decision of the superdelegates require them to exercise their best independent judgement; this is what Howard Dean has been saying all along.  If Obama is so concerned about superdelegates "overturning the will of the people", then, he should have refused the endorsements of Senators Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts; after all, Hillary won their state.  Obama should have refused the endorsements of Governors Patrick of Massachusetts, Napolitano of Arizona, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico because Hillary won their states as well.  Obama doesn't seem to concerned about "overturning the will of the people" when it is to his advantage.

         One last say on the subject... if Obama is truly concerned about the "will of the people", then, why did he run the clock out on the MIchigan and Florida re-vote?  The people spoke and said that they wanted their votes to be heard.  By running out the clock, it disenfranchised the voters in those states and it, also, hurts the Democrats in the general election.  It seems pretty apparent that the Obama campaign views the "will of the people" as nothing more than words.... rhetoric.... political necessity.

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]

PRO_BONO_GREGE

  • Visit PRO_BONO_GREGE's Xanga Site
    • Name: PRO_BONO_GREGE
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 4/23/2008

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • This site is put together in an attempt to cover articles and news stories that the press predominantly overlook. The information is all contained within the blogs and has been verified by creditable sources: Reuters, CBSNews, FOXNews, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, ABCNews, BBC, etc. The blogs contain information for those who are still looking for the facts. We ask that all readers open their minds and read the information OBJECTIVELY. Feel free to research the information yourself, independently. The more people are informed, the wiser their judgements become. So, please take the time to check out the blog entries. Thank you. This information is provide "PRO BONO GREGE!" ; FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!

Subscriptions

Pulse

PRO_BONO_GREGE has no pulse!...

Photostrip

[no photos]

Recommended

[no recommendations]