Rebuttal to anti-Obama email/articleThis is an anti-Obama email that has been making rounds on the Internet . My grandmother forwarded it to me, and after looking over it, I decided to post a rebuttal to it. My comments are in bold and are indented. The email follows the asterisks.
************************************************************************
************************************************************************ PLEASE read all of this. I promise you will learn something.
Mr, Blackwell is a Columnist who happens to be Black. However, he is a true red
blooded American and in my opinion, has profound knowledge of who and why
we are who we are as a Nation.
Billy
Gee
First off, the
columnist is introduced as “black,” supposedly giving his opinion of Obama more
weight than other opinions. I doubt he
gets much joy out of being singled out as a "black columnist." Also, instead of “true red blooded American”,
one can substitute the phrase “true Republican” without any inaccuracies. Not that this immediately invalidates the
following text; just be aware that the bias exists.
==============================================================
Wednesday, March 11, 2008
1:57 PM Subject: Fwd: FW: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama.
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York
Sun
(Note: The title of the article is
“Beyond Obama’s Beauty” and was published 14 February 2008)
It's an amazing time to be alive in America.
We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman
candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is
the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next President of America will
be a first.
This is an amazing time to be alive in America. However, this is a biased paragraph. The
wording makes it sound like McCain is the only candidate who will try to keep America free.
This is hardly the truth, and I think everybody already knows this so I
won’t spend more time dwelling on it.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate
by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk
about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to
the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and
start talking about his policies and his politics.
I agree here. Race and gender shouldn’t be much of an issue
at all, much less dominate the news channels.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August,
unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its
time America
takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next
John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people
learned the facts.
While Obama and
McGovern share some of the same political opinions, such as being anti-war and
pro-choice, the comparison isn’t exactly fair.
McGovern’s campaign failed, in large part, due to controversy surrounding
his running mate, Thomas Eagleton. Other
things that factored into his loss were the tactics used by Nixon’s associates,
including the Watergate break-in. Taking
that into account, saying Obama is the next McGovern is obviously what Mr. Blackwell
wants, not what is necessarily going to happen.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal congressman in the
entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or
Mrs. Clinton.
I’ve seen the
National Journal’s study that shows Obama is the most liberal congressman, but
I have a hard time believing that it is accurate. Saying Obama is the furthest left puts him
ahead of Bernie Sanders (VT), a self described socialist. It would be very hard to be further left than
a socialist. Considering that Joe Biden, a man not exactly known for being an
extreme leftist, is listed as the third most liberal congressman, and that John
Kerry was selected as the most liberal congressman in 2003, it adds a lot of
doubt as to the accuracy of the findings.
Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner
whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to
raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and
he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
1) How is his
rhetoric far removed from his record? He
speaks about change, about not playing politics as usual, about taking Washington down a different route. He cosponsored a bill promoting greater accountability
in federal spending. In the current
congress, he’s sponsored bills on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change,
and care for returned military personnel.
These are directly related to his rhetoric.
2) As for the comparisons to other politicians,
the times have changed. The most recent
of the three candidates Obama is compared to ran in 1988. Twenty years ago. The comparisons are out of date and
irrelevant.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls.
Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and
blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined
strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Admittedly, the press
was easier on Obama during the early part of the election; however, that is no
longer the case. Except for Obama’s
current lead in the race, they are running on much more even footing now.
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are
as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading
Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions
with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another
Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but
emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists -
something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear
weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security
condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would
put our national security at risk.
1) Obama didn’t call
for an invasion of Pakistan; he said that rather than a surge in the number of
troops, there should be a diplomatic surge and that if there were
"actionable intelligence reports" showing bin Laden in Pakistan, the
U.S. should enter and try to capture terrorists, if and only if "the
Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.
2) We need to be open to diplomacy. The
Bush/Cheney regime has ignored and ostracized any leader they disagree with,
and it has gotten us nowhere. It has
solved nothing. Ignoring Castro didn’t
make anything better for the Cubans.
Ignoring Kim Jong Il hasn’t put food on the tables of his people. Our leaders need to negotiate with leaders
openly and often. This is a much better
way of getting things accomplished than threatening our opponents.
3) Not considering the use of nuclear weapons
is a bad thing? Since when? Using nuclear weapons would set a terrible
precedent. Next thing you know, England, Israel, Russia, and every other nuclear power would
consider using them in a variety of different situations.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is
the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton
as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even
people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.
Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social
Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs?
Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes.. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His
solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids,
funded by your paycheck.
1) Our health care
system is the strongest in the world?
What world is Mr. Blackwell living in?
16% of Americans were without health care at some point in 2006. Health insurance costs are rising faster than
both wages and inflation. Also, the
primary causes of personal bankruptcy are medical bills. In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked
the US health care system 37th in
overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health.
2) And the free trade agreements? They have made goods more affordable, but
they’ve also allowed an exodus of American companies to foreign countries. As companies leave America, Americans lose jobs. As the companies move to foreign countries,
the people there are exploited by them.
3) His solution to everything isn’t to
raise taxes or have government take it over.
It’s just the solution to some things.
There are some things the government should regulate. In light of the sub-prime mortgage disaster,
it’s now apparent that the companies should be watched over by the
government. Otherwise, what is to stop
these corporations from preying on the little guy again? Nothing.
And he’s not saying “raise taxes to pay for college.” He said that “we shouldn’t be providing
billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways to private banks; we should be providing
an affordable, accessible college education to every American.” We’re already using this tax money and giving
it to banks who give high interest loans to students. Why not give it directly to the students and
cut out the greedy corporate middleman?
4) And don’t talk to me about “Big
Brother on steroids” when the current administration spies on phone calls, checks
in on what you’ve been reading in libraries, and puts people in secret prisons
where American laws don’t apply. That’s
1984 for you.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium
rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders
speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is
pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who
will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion
views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His
spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that
direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on
all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood,
and San Francisco values, not Middle
America values.
1) Obama didn’t say
that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have hijacked
Christianity. He said SOME leaders had
hijacked it and used it to divide us, rather than bring us together. This has happened. A notable example is Fred Phelps. Few would attempt to argue that Phelps’ ministry
holds true to the spirit of Christianity.
2) Also, Mr. Obama isn’t pro-partial abortion; he’s just not
anti-partial abortion. You don’t have to be
one or the other. He’s saying that if
it’s banned, then there is no option to take if it’s needed. However, he would rather a different option
be taken.
3) As for the Margaret Sanger
connection, it is irrelevant. They
happen to share the same views on abortion, but her advocating racial cleansing
has nothing to do with Obama, a man of mixed heritage himself. It’s just a feeble attempt to connect him with
an extremely unpopular view.
4) And as a
supporter of the 14th amendment, which provides for equal rights for
all, it’s unsurprising that Obama would support the right for homosexual
couples to marry.
5) However, I’m not going
to defend his gun control stance. It’s a
position that I myself disagree with.
The fact that I don’t agree with every single one of his opinions
doesn’t make him any less of a great candidate in my opinion.
6) All of these values aren’t the views of
the radical left, unless you consider the entire left side of the spectrum as
“radical.” These are common views held
by the majority of the Democratic Party, and some are even held by Independents
and the rare Republican. Attempting to
label them as “radical” views in an attempt to make them sound ridiculous is a
ploy we’re not falling for.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is
a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking
behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America
together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are
hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda
and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
If Obama is actually
the easy target in the general election, why is a Republican journalist
supporting the stronger candidate here?
Easy. Mr. Blackwell knows Obama
is a stronger candidate than Hillary and is trying to convince people
otherwise. And those who disagree with
his agenda are hijackers or warmongers? Please.
Bush said that “you’re either with us, or you’re with the
terrorists.” It doesn’t get much worse
than that when it comes to criticizing your opponents.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and -
yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on
which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far
outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
How a speaker speaks
IS important. Our current President has
proved that. The world mocks us because
our President is known for butchering the English language. Why not elect a President that can speak and
captivate listeners? Sure, it’s a novel
concept, but definitely not a poor one.
And as for Obama being outside the American mainstream, I do believe America is vastly against the war. Where does that leave John McCain?
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's
first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a
nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Haha, civilizational
war… sorry, the concept of it made me laugh.
===============================================================
Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think? Remember--God is good, and is
in time, on time, every time. According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ
is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will
deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like
appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise
false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything.
Is it OBAMA?? I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this
as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a
friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy..I'm sorry but I refuse
to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate.
What kind of scare
tactics are these? It’s nothing but
propaganda designed to prey on the fears of the religious. At least it’s written by random Mr. Joe
Internet and not Mr. Blackwell. But
still… to draw a comparison between Obama and the anti-Christ is ridiculous,
hateful, and ignorant. | 
