Barack Obama Is Not The Second Coming Of Christ, Part 1

To listen to this report (with cool music and everything!) go here

Most people who like Barack Obama say that he’s inspirational, he will bring about a change to this country, and that he’s a unifier. In fact, Obama seems to be pulling together groups of people from all over the place: including people far-off to the left who would normally despise (or at least begrudgingly support) a Democratic canidate. In fact, many have likened Obama to a political-rock star or a Messiah-esque figure. Sometimes it seems unbelievable the kind of status Obama is given by his supporters. I would know: I’m from Illinois. This was true before he was running for president, and it is certainly true now, but anytime anyone says anything negative about Obama – his supporters seem to cover their ears and kick and scream like toddlers who aren’t getting their way. They have a true and seemingly dangerously undemocratic commitment to the senator. He and his legions promise us a vague sense of change to this nation, that the election of Barack Obama will bring upon us a great awakening.

Unfortunately, I believe the man is a mere mortal. Worse, in fact, I believe he is a politician-mortal. This belief gave me the ability to look beyond the Messiah-status and see the truth of what Obama stands for.

So what’s behind all of this hype, rhetoric of change, and unifying that’s been sweeping people up? Who is Obama bringing together, what does he support, and what sort of “change” are we going to see around here if Obama’s elected?

I mean, what does Obama really stand for?:

1) The expansion of the U.S. Military and the continuing occupation of Iraq
2) The possible bombings of Iran and Pakistan
3) The unilateral support of Israel
4) Ties to Nuclear-Power groups
5) The support of the Re-Authorization of the U.S. Patriot Act
6) The support of a Republican-funded bill to build a 700-mile long fence across the U.S. – Mexico border.
7) Semi-Support for No Child Left Behind

I don’t know about you, but that’s not really the kind of “change” I’m hoping for. But let’s explore each one of these points more thoroughly:

1) The expansion of the U.S. Military and the continuing occupation of Iraq

Throughout the presidential campaign, Obama has stated that he was against the war “from the beginning.” This is true, Obama did initially speak out against the war in Iraq, but I’d like to hark back to his 2004 senate run. When Obama was still trailing in the polls in the Democratic Primary for a seat as an Illinois senator, he flashed his credentials as the “anti-war” candidate. As told by, once Obama had captured that “anti-war” vote and the president’s approval ratings were doing fairly well, Obama removed his dissenting speech of the invasion of Iraq from the front of his campaign’s website page. The purpose? To get the votes of people who did not have a hardline anti-war stance. Eventually, Obama’s campaign was contacted about the removal of his speech, and they were persuaded to put it back on the website – but it was returned to some back-alley portion of the site.

Of course, Obama is a politician, a mere mortal. He’s bound to do things like this. This, of course, is not his worst offense. To see that, we must look at his current stance on the war in Iraq.

While examining what Obama means when he says he wants to bring troops home, we need to look at his vague-policy tactics. In his policy speeches, he talks about bringing home the “combat troops” and “combat brigades” from Iraq. What he completely omits, however, is the six-figure (that’s over a hundred thousand) mercenary contractors in Iraq (see: Blackwater), the “training” troops, the “counterinsurgency” troops, and the many other kinds of troops that exist in Iraq. In fact, Barack Obama has pressed to increase the U.S. Army and Marines by more than 100,000 troops and has proposed a military budget that is even larger than that of the Bush presidency’s.

But it goes on. In 2004, Obama won the race for the Illinois senate seat. What happened then? He almost immediately disposed of his anti-war stance, taking the more moderate position that the U.S. should remain in Iraq until the job was done. His current stance, in 2008, is that the U.S. military should embark on a “phased redeployment” of its troops, the U.S. should set “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government to meet, but that the military should not fully withdraw. Obama wants to keep a specialized force in Iraq, working together with all other U.S. troops in the region, to – in the words of Joshua Frank – “strike if necessary.”

Barack Obama and John McCain seem to have a bit in common.

2) The possible bombings of Iran and Pakistan

Just like Obama believes that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq for an extended period of time, he also adheres to the Bush Doctrine that, and I quote, “Iran is genuine threat” to the United States and Israel. Time and time again, Barack Obama has brought up the issue of taking military action against Iran. A nuclear Iran would be, in Obama’s words, “a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons.” Does this sound like a big change from the fear-mongering we’ve been hearing for almost eight years now?

Of course, Obama is a somewhat sensible person. He understands that with the ongoing war in Iraq, “launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in.” But then he goes on: “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” And, just like George Bush, Obama has argued that military strikes in Pakistan should not be ruled out if the Pakistani government will not strike a target in its own borders that the United States perceives as a threat. He has also stated that military strikes in Pakistan could be used if “violent extremists” went on to “take over” the country.

So far, Barack Obama puts the United States in a position where it could be involved in military conflicts with four nations (counting Afghanistan)! These are all views Senator Obama shares with Hilary Clinton and George Bush.

3) The unilateral support of Israel

This, of course, brings us to the third issue: Obama’s current unilateral support of Israel.

It wasn’t always that way. Before and in the early days of Obama’s U.S. senate campaign, he had allies in the Arab-American and Palestinian communities. His turncoat, however, wasn’t much of a surprise. Obama, being the mortal-politician that he is, needed money for his senate campaign (and currently needs money for his presidential run!). Unfortunately for him, the Palestinian-American groups do not have an infrastructure in place that could shuffle in the kind of dough that he’s looking for. Who does? The Pro-Israel institutions (the people who are usually for Hillary). On March 2, 2007 Obama had these words about Iran and Israel:

“[W]e must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs…This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.”

To which author Ali Abunimah replied, “As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.”

In a speech given to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a strongly pro-Israel group), the “agent of change Obama”, sounded – according to Shmuel Rosner – “as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” What about that is a “change” in U.S. policy? At least in this respect, Obama is pretty stagnant (though, I guess, no one wants to sell the “Stagnant Candidate”). In fact, Obama didn’t offer one point of criticism for Israel. When asked about the country’s use of cluster bombs (bombs which sole purpose are to maim and disfigure individuals, bombs which have been outlawed even by the United States) on citizens in Lebanon during last summer’s war, Obama stated that Israel was exercising its “legitimate right to defend itself.” The use of cluster bombs on Lebanese civilians was a tactic that even the Bush administration criticized.

In the war last summer, Al Abunimah tells us that “in total, forty-three Israeli civilians were killed by Hizbullah rockets during the thirty-four day war. For every Israeli civilian who died, over twenty-five Lebanese civilians were killed by indiscriminate Israeli bombing — over one thousand in total, a third of them children. ” Obama didn’t even have any words of criticism for Israel’s bombing of Gaza’s only power plant – which left hospitals out of order, residents in the dark, and so on.

All of this support for Israel has been a calculation by Obama, a tactical move for his campaign. As early as 2003, Obama was beginning to abandon the Palestinian-Americans he had allegiances with when he helped the state of Illinois lend money to the government of Israel.

4) Ties to Nuclear-Power groups

The unilateral support for Israel, however, is not the only indication we have that Obama abandons a cause for political gains. Last year, citizens of Illinois were in a scare when the nuclear power company Exelon released information that it had been accidentally contaminating drinking water with nuclear-waste toxic chemicals for years. Oops!

Senator Obama immediately scolded the Exelon company and federal regulators. Following this, he introduced a bill that required plant owners to notify state and local authorities right away of any leaks. Ever since, he’s been boasting about this on the campaign trail.

The only problem is that this legislation drastically changed from when Obama initially introduced it to when it got passed. In the end, it became a piece of legislation that only encouraged Nuclear-Power plants to report leaks. You know, no big deal, I’m sure they’ll do that on their own free volition.

What happened? There was immense pressure on Obama by such groups as Exelon. Why was this a big deal to Obama? It turns out that Obama owes these folks huge. Exelon is the largest nuclear plant operator in the country and also one of Obama’s biggest sources of campaign money. Over the past five years, executives and employees of Exelon have given at least $227,000 dollars to Obama’s campaign for the senate and now for the president. In fact, two of the top Exelon officials are some of Obama’s largest fund-raisers. But it goes on: the chairman of Exelon, who is also the chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group on behalf of the nuclear power industry, supports the senator from Illinois far more than any other presidential candidate. Finally, Obama’s “chief political strategist” has worked as a consultant to the Exelon company.

A political figure who’s in debt to a major and dangerous lobbying group; now that’s something fresh!

Issues 5-7 we will cover in Part 2 of this report.


So how is Obama so successful? I think the said it the best – “The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience. ” Obama is a marketing campaign, full of vague promises about a product that doesn’t settle anywhere near its reality. Us leftists and progressives are buying a product that we’re refusing to take out of the packaging. We’re so sick of the current President-Product we’ve got, that we’re ready to buy up the new one without even really examining it.

But isn’t that how we got into this mess in first place?

In the end, though, Obama’s no better or worse than Hillary Clinton. This isn’t a report asking you to throw your support one way or another; I’m sure I could put together an equally long mantra about the Clinton.

What I’m asking is for you to take a solid look at the candidates, to scrutinize them, to question them, to be critical of them, to challenge them, and to doubt them. Never be satisfied with what they have to offer and always demand for more. If you want to vote, then vote for whoever you want, but please know that voting is not the only or even most significant thing you can do – especially in a two party dichotomy. No true change will come from a Democrat or a Republican, these are the same people who have been running this country for over a hundred years. There are surely differences between the two, but if you vote for Obama or Hillary, and either of them win, you won’t wake up in the morning to a new and fresh society that completely erased all the wrong’s its produced in its history.

Obama, like every single mainstream politician aspiring to be president, is a mere mortal that is seeking office in order to fill some sort of ambition. They will do and say what they think they need to do in order to help them reach their ultimate goal, and maybe they don’t think turning their backs on issues or individuals or taking money from dangerous institutions will change them by the time they become president, but it will.

However, you do have the power to make a difference, beyond voting, by taking action, organizing, and being involved in communities, efforts, and projects that are important to you. True change will not come from the hands of a dichotomy that has been responsible for the institution it claims it wants to change; instead, change to our society, world, and communities has to come from the tireless action and effort of individuals like yourself.

(I want to note, personally, in the upcoming election I will be voting for a third party candidate. Why? If a third party candidate is able to garnish 5% of the vote in the presidential campaign, they get official recognition as a national party and they receive a sizable government grant for future elections. I believe destroying the Two-Party Only dichotomy and structure of this nation is extremely important to bringing about a true change – and by that, I mean a change and difference for the better, not the kind of Change-But-Really-Not-Change that Barack Obama speaks of).


4 responses to “Barack Obama Is Not The Second Coming Of Christ, Part 1

  1. Two party voting may be a problem. But I wonder if religous dogmas swaying peoples voting opinions is even worse. A nice breath of fresh air from that is “For Us The Living” by Robert Heinlin yea it also covers some socalistic ideas. But is a interesting read. To change the world media works well but funding from wind and power will really talk.

  2. The Bible teaches: The Kingdom of God is within you, Christ is in you and the Holy Spirit lives in you.

    Christ’s Second Coming to establish Heaven on Earth is therefore being realized when we allow Him to appear through us. The Second Coming of Christ is taking place right now inside of people who purify their thoughts and emotions to allow Christ to enter their hearts and minds. Thus Christ is coming into our world.

    Barack Obama is an instrument in the Second Coming of Christ and so is everyone else.

  3. Charlotte Sullivan

    hi bitch u are a ho

  4. the second coming of christ is merely for her liberation if u like it or not.
    I am one of them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s