Skip to main content

Barack Obama is a Neocon in Disguise

The 2004 Democratic National Convention
was most remembered for a young, energetic senator the likes of the
American people had not seen since Bobby Kennedy. With his DNC
presentation, Barack Obama was launched into the national spotlight,
lauded for his populist-themed speech that became universally
described as “articulate”. More importantly, Obama was bringing
a new style of rhetoric to the political table that ultimately set
the stage for the 2006 elections and his current presidential
campaign. Anyone unsure of his political record was still aware of
his staunch criticism of the Iraq War. From this national
appearance he filled a political void by connecting with the growing
anti-Iraq-war movement. But in more recent speeches, Obama has
clarified his pro-interventionist intentions.

Although Barack Obama is described as
a liberal Democrat, his message on foreign policy has been subject to
question. Obama criticizes the handling of the Iraq war, but
continues to promote an interventionist agenda. He has aligned
himself with American Israeli Political Action committee by
prioritizing defense of Israel in the middle east. A polarized
political affiliation with Israel will needlessly drag the US into
further wars in the mideast. In a recent speech to AIPAC regarding
Iran's nuclear program, Obama clearly states “we should take no
option, including military action, off the table”. Israeli
military conflict with Iran would bring the US into a full scale war.
As of last week, there are now five Nimitz-class aircraft carriers
with escort flotillas positioned off the coast of Iran. Elements of
government are desperately seeking war with Iran. In his speeches
given to pro-Israel groups, Obama clarifies that he seeks more
intervention when dealing with Iran, which he considers “a threat
to all of us”. Ironically, the US has already supplied its middle
eastern allies with nuclear systems. The US is known to be the
world's greatest violator of non-proliferation treaties. Obama's
hypocrisy is most evident by his denouncement of the politics of oil.
Obama's alliance would back a preemptive strike against Iran that
would disrupt oil fields that provide energy to Asia and Europe,
further increasing world oil prices. It would create incentive for
an attack on Iran. His foreign policy cannot be considered anti-war
by any stretch of the definition. Surprising, these politics are
closest aligned with the “neoconservative” ideology. Obama
preaches an anti-war message to his constituency, but promises an
unfaltering military alliance with Israel.

Obama goes even further in his support
for further US military activities. He outlines an ambitious foreign
policy plan a recent essay written for Foreign Affairs magazine
(July/Aug 07). Iran and Syria are specified as longstanding threats
that must be neutralized by means of American power.

Barack Obama can captivate anyone with
his refreshing new style of political rhetoric. He has gathered
supporters by acknowledging the failures in Iraq. Unfortunately, he
supports polarizing foreign alliances. Like many politicians, there
is duplicity to his message. It is not a message of anti-war.
Obama's foreign policy goals leave us constantly on the brink of a
full scale war. It puts our defense forces at the disposal of our
“allies”. Barack Obama's deceptive message on foreign policy
make him a neocon in sheep's clothing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...