Main menu:

Site Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Similar Posts

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Categories

Archive

Why I Can’t Support Obama


One more apologist for the American empire?

The title of this post is a bit misleading, because I probably support Barack Obama more than any other candidate for U.S. president. Still, his foreign policy positions are enough to seriously compromise my support. I despair of ever seeing a U.S. president with a progressive foreign policy, which to me means practicing the same principles of justice and equality outside our borders that we proclaim as our own fundamental rights. In this global era, borders are no longer meaningful except to the wealthy elites who run most nations. A true progressive must be prepared to argue that the world’s poor and excluded deserve the same voice in shaping policy that we demand for ourselves. Senator Obama of all people should know that, having spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, and his early adulthood as a community organizer in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. But his foreign policy pronouncements have been largely establishment rhetoric, as I will illustrate here.

I guess we can’t expect a presidential candidate to turn down an invitation to speak at AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that helped give us the Iraq war, and now wants a war with Iran. But when Obama spoke there, did he really have to pander as blatantly as this?

    I think “a small gathering of friends” fits this crowd just right. I want to begin today by telling you a story. Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. […] Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. What struck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The houses and streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. I could imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I could imagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. There were cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed.

As it happens, Kiryat Shmona was hit repeatedly by missiles during last summer’s war between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces. I’m no supporter of Hezbollah missles, which were surely launched with the knowledge that they would kill civilians. But a far greater number of Lebanese civilians died in that war. This was rationalized by moral opportunists like Alan Dershowitz, who argued in the Los Angeles Times that some civilian deaths are “more tragic than others.” Apparently, Lebanese civilians deserve to die more than Israeli civilians do, because they might be harboring terrorists. Besides, Obama might add, their homes don’t “look like ones you might find in a suburb in America.” There are no cars in the driveways. The shrubs are untrimmed. Given the history of American prejudice, Obama should know better than to argue that we must stand with Israel simply because they “look like” us.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it began, but today he offers little hope for a resolution, calling not for full withdrawal of American forces (of the presidential candidates, only Bill Richardson and Ron Paul have done this) but for a “phased redeployment” of “combat forces” that will allow “a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism,” thus ensuring that Iraq will remain under American tutelage for the forseeable future. Indeed, the American footprint in the region might even expand. As he told AIPAC, “We will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.”

In many ways, Obama’s view of the Middle East is no more enlightened than that of our current president. Hezbollah is said to have “attacked Israel” instead of the other way around, although Seymour Hersh has shown that Israel planned the confrontation well in advance with help from the Bush adminstration. Iran is called “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel, and world peace,” as if world peace were identical with U.S. and Israeli interests. President Ahmadinejad is said to have called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” a mistranslation that has become one of the cliches of Middle East reporting. More accurately, he expressed the hope that Zionism would one day “vanish from the page of time” as the Soviet Union has. Obama goes on to say:

    In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

So for Ahmadinejad to imagine a future in which Israel is gone from the scene, as Reagan did to the Soviet Union when he tossed it on the “ash heap of history,” is an “outrage” that cannot be “dismissed.” In fact the outrage is so great that the U.S. is justified in responding with force. Like every other American politican, Obama insists that “we should take no option, including military action, off the table.” He compounds this double standard by imagining a future in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are provoked by Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to launch their own nuclear programs. This hypothetical crisis, still years away if it happens at all, ignores the fact that the Middle East already has a nuclear state. But Obama has no problem with that. Israel’s suburbs look like ours.

America’s love affair with Israel is complicated, and I can understand why Barack Obama in particular, as the first serious African-American presidential candidate, would feel the need to prove his credentials to the Jewish community. Black leaders have been accused in the past (with varying degrees of justification) of anti-Jewish sentiment, as when Jesse Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark helped sink his 1984 presidential bid. One of the great black leaders of his generation, Andrew Young, was appointed ambassador to the U.N. by Jimmy Carter, only to be fired for talking to the PLO at a time when it was still considered a terrorist group. Given this history, Obama may feel that he has no choice but to set minds at ease with an early statement of support for Israel. But does he have to do it in such a pandering way? For once I would like to hear an American politician say, “Israel has a right to defend itself, but self-defense doesn’t mean bombing a family who are asleep in their homes.”

Moving on from the Middle East, there is the larger question of how Obama sees our role in the world. In a major foreign policy speech in Chicago, he lays out his vision, which seems designed to reassure those who want to believe that America is still “leader of free world” and “the last, best hope of Earth.” “Best hope” is bad enough, but “last, best hope”? What right do we have to proclaim ourselves the “last” hope of humanity, as if no culture will ever come along to improve on ours? This kind of exceptionalism, this sense of privilege in being an American (no doubt offered, in Obama’s case, with the best of intentions) is what has led us into countless misadventures, and blinded us to our responsibility for the deaths of millions, from Hiroshima to Vietnam to Iraq.

Obama’s rhetoric is marred by the naive and dangerous equations “America = hope” and “America’s interests = human interests.” I give him credit for being more aware of what is going on in the world than most presidential candidates, but his vision for America is a megalomaniac one. He sees a borderless world with America as the leader. Isn’t that another name for empire?

    Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease…the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries. […] We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people. […] And America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners…who want our beacon of hope to shine its light their way.

Someone should remind him that a beacon only shines in one direction. I wish the U.S. would try listening for a change. We’ve had a century to lead the world. Haven’t we done enough? In fairness, though, towards the end of his speech, Obama slips into a more progressive groove. After making the requisite nod to “using force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves,” he switches gears, calling on us to “ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.” I want to believe this is the real Obama, but how do I know?

    The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice. Delivering on these universal aspirations…requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy—a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world’s weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth.
    The corruption I heard about while visiting parts of Africa has been around for decades, but the hunger to eliminate such corruption is a growing and powerful force…. We must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform. We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner—a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand…must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people.

On a symbolic level, I feel that Obama is the right face for America to show the world in these troubled times. The election of a president whose father was a student from Kenya would be a powerful statement of the values we claim to uphold. Bill Clinton is still popular in places like Morocco because he treated the people there like his own constituents, no doubt giving their leaders a few lessons in democracy in the process. I sense that Obama will be like that. But will he orchestrate a change in policy, or simply give the empire a new face? At a minimum, whoever is running America needs to be on guard against the sense of entitlement that goes with leadership of the most powerful nation in history.

The French blogger leblase has some thoughts about this in his latest post. He is disussing the wealthy democracies and how they function as exclusive clubs.

    In Europe, the airline Air France is the one that sends back the largest number of people by force. These rejects, who have often undergone frightful ordeals in order to reach our exemplary country, are sometimes accompanied by the police and handcuffed to their seats. As we know, it even happens that their mouths are taped shut if they make a scene. If by chance you are in the same plane, protesting against this treatment could get you investigated for obstruction of justice.
    Mustn’t we see in this miserable chain of events a sign that despite this democracy we are ceaselessly bragging about, we are obliged more and more to give up our humanity, prevented from reaching out to that other “we” who is doing nothing more than what we would do in his place? Isn’t it true that the “conditions necessary for maintaining our lifestyle” ensure that in the end we become inert? Insensitive? Untouchable? Perpetually informed about the world, yet perpetually blind to those like us? Guilty of non-assistance to a soul in danger?

I will close with something I wrote two summers ago in Morocco, after the 2004 presidential elections made me realize the irony of choosing the “leader of the free world” through a vote of just five percent of the world’s population. If Obama could appreciate this irony and begin to educate the American people about it, I might be able to support him as enthusiastically as I would like.

    I think it is fair to say that we live in a time when the very idea of democracy is in question, not least because of its own failure to deliver on the promise of universal justice and human rights. Democracy is rightfully an ideal to be aspired to, but once established, it tends to become nothing more than a process that can easily be hijacked to serve as an enabler and apologist for the accumulation of wealth. What we have now is a core group of wealthy democracies that seek to protect themselves from the pressing demands of those excluded from the game. Within these democracies, it is tempting to imagine that an empire would be a more direct way to achieve the same ends, since it would no longer be necessary to pay homage to outmoded ideals of liberty which place limits on forthright action. Outside these democracies, another question poses itself. If this is the true face of democracy, what use is it to us? Why should we seek to enter a game that is stacked against us, where we aren’t even welcome? In these conditions, if democracy in its true sense is to survive and flourish, there is an urgent necessity to reaffirm its original impulse, which is a message to all humanity. All human beings, everywhere on the planet, have the right to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. All human beings have the right to organize, to assemble, to openly debate questions of public policy, to disagree in good conscience, to choose their leaders and their form of government. The common interest ultimately prevails over private interests, but the common interest must be the product of consent. In extreme cases, when decisions are imposed without consent and no redress is possible, all human beings have the right to revolt, to throw out the contract and try again. In a world where decisions made in one country can affect lives half a world away, islands of democracy here and there in “suitable conditions” are not enough. Democracy must be universal, or it is meaningless. That is the message for our time.

UPDATE 1: Interesting! Pierre Tristam of Candide’s Notebooks beat me to this by two weeks. Check out his detailed critique of Obama’s latest foreign policy statement—”The Audacity of Fraud: How Barack Obama Is Losing My Vote.”

UPDATE 2: In the Democratic presidential debate the other night, Senator Obama drew attention by agreeing to meet for discussions with any foreign leader, including the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, while Hillary Clinton refused to make such a promise. I see this as a positive sign. Perhaps he is beginning to think for himself a little about foreign policy, rather than follow conventional wisdom. Even more interesting are some private comments he made later, explaining why he is confident that his foreign policy judgement is “better than anyone else in this race.”

    I don’t base that simply on the fact that I was right on the war in Iraq. But if you look at how I approached the problem. What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.

On the one hand, Obama is like President Bush in that he trusts his judgment more than that of the foreign policy establishment. On the other hand, it’s true that the establishment has unforgivable blind spots. Besides, there is a vast difference in the life experience of the two men. I’ve never heard Bush talk about “being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.” Is Obama finding his own, progressive voice on foreign policy? His early opposition to war in Iraq proves he can think for himself, and he is clearly a man capable of evolution. For now, I’m willing to give him a few more months.

Comments

Comment from E Hillblom
Time: July 21, 2007, 17:23

Regarding, Air France and turning back refugees I would like to point out that every airline flying to the EU is required by law to bear the cost of returning passengers who are refused entry – by the authorities – into the EU! Air France is no worse than the others, and it’s not their fault either.

The border control is effectively outsourced and refugees are stopped not at the border but at the airport gate. In addition to that, visas can only be obtained once you’re inside EU… In short, the European Union is the ultimate fortress.

Comment from Obama
Time: July 21, 2007, 22:03

I believe Obama’s whole way of doing things and outlook on life is completely different than the most individuals in the groups he’s being labeled as being a part of. For example, him proposing a “progressive foreign policy” I would imagine to be a world of difference compared to what we imagine that term to be with the current politics.

I hope Obama wins, but on another note, I also hope that his presidency doesn’t temporarily “re-brand” our government so that the next politicians can use it to their advantage, and pervert his initial motives into something it shouldn’t be. That’s of course many obstacles ahead of the current situation, but definitely something to think about.

Comment from adel
Time: July 21, 2007, 22:13

Based on this I would elect Gravel… using my simple mind

Comment from Ibn Kafka
Time: July 22, 2007, 00:03

Great post, eatbees! I’ll refer to it each time someone wishes to generalise about Americans and their views on their country’s foreign policy!

Comment from yunir
Time: July 22, 2007, 09:10

The American President is elected by Americans for Americans. It’s not by Americans, for the the entire planet.

And for that, I’m with Ron Paul, who seems to be the only candidate who understands the role of a President, and what a constitution is.

Comment from Jillian
Time: July 22, 2007, 10:12

Excellent post. I’ve been feeling this way about Obama too (I had already decided not to vote for him based on probability), but you articulated much better than I could. His imagining an empire is what got me too.

I’m pretty certain I’ll be voting for Gravel. Ron Paul was a consideration, but after he stated his belief that evolution is a crock, I changed my mind. Not to mention the fact that he’s an anti-choice gynecologist.

Comment from yunir
Time: July 23, 2007, 09:04

Hi Jillian,

Ron’s fundamentally a Christian, tht’s why he’s with the Repupblican and thinks evolution is a crock.

But nontheless, I think he’s against federal laws outlawing abortion or the education on creationism/evolution. Unless I’ve got it wrong, he has maintained that these issues are to be left to the State level.

Comment from eatbees
Time: July 23, 2007, 16:01

@Yunir — You say, “The American President is elected by Americans for Americans.” But there are few nations of the world where the U.S. does not have a military presence, and our economic and cultural reach—what Bill Clinton called “soft power”—is even greater. It’s a fact that American foreign policy affects millions, if not billions of people who never get a chance to vote in U.S. elections.

Every politician, liberal or conservative talks about “U.S. interests in the Middle East” as if that makes sense. We seem to assume that we have the right to project our interests anywhere in the world. Imagine if the Chinese talked about “Chinese interests in the Great Lakes” or the Saudis claimed “Arab interests in the Rocky Mountains.”

I don’t think it’s possible or healthy for the U.S. to disengage from the world. As I say in the post, “borders are no longer meaningful except to the wealthy elites who run most nations.” What I want to see is a new kind of foreign policy in which the U.S. acts democratically outside its borders instead of imposing its will through military might.

To me, this means expanding the contract we have made with other nations. Under the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and approved by the Senate have the force of law. In fact, they have the same force as the Constitution itself. That means we can work to create international structures, including a global confederacy like the EU. Tell me why we shouldn’t try?

Comment from yunir
Time: July 24, 2007, 01:45

Hi eatbees,

I think when they talk about “U.S interests” they mean U.S corporate interests. And when military might is used to protect these corporate interests, that’s where things get messy.

But if, as you said, U.S acts democratically/diplomatically to sign treaties with other nations – not just for “peace, no war” but also to facilitate trade, then that’s good. But again, a country has the right to accept/reject any diplomatic proposals by U.S.
A rejection should not be answered by threats.

A better foreign policy does not mean no foreign policy or complete withdrawal from the world. It just has to be better than the current war-mongering system.

Comment from tijanna
Time: July 24, 2007, 15:17

As far as Obama being a new face for The Establishment—I think if he were its new face, I could stand looking at it a lot longer than Baby Bush’s monkey noggin. It would be a prettier, more charismatic face, with a smooth, silky, chocolaty voice, not unlike:

Mmmmmmmm. Yes. Just thinking of it is hypnotizing me and making me thirsty for foreign policy soup. Isn’t it about time that we let some brown people fuck up this country? White guys have been doing it for decades. Let us have a shot at it!

—an enthusiastic Obama supporter (and brown person)

Comment from leblase
Time: July 24, 2007, 17:29

Hi eatbees,
I’m pretty flattered to read your quotation and your great translation -it actually sounds better in your English than in my French! – and I’m also quite impressed by the quality of the comments to your post.

Concerning Obama, and not forgetting that in order to raise funds for his campaign he had to do a lot of mainstreaming, I’m afraid he got lost on the way.
One could say he is well advised -to raise so much money also means he has a great reach over people- but one could also say he is badly advised: the candidate is turning into a I’ll-say-what-you-want-to-hear template.
You have perfectly picked some of the issues where one would have wished Sen. Obama to show a difference and didn’t, making it all the more disturbing.
Where is the man who got my attention in 2003, standing against the Iraq war when only one dared to, in spite of the hysterical atmosphere created around a fake patriotic argument?
Where is the man who knows of the outside world and its complexity?
People are still waiting for an imaginative, sensible plan that would reconcile America with the rest of the world, and still maintain a high rate of security against the follies to come.
Up to now, I would say he hasn’t delivered.. But neither have the other candidates.
Making better than Clinton at fund-raising is not convincing enough a policy…Are the Democrats waiting for their leaders to crash, in order to call back Gore?

@E Hillblom
Regarding Air France, it so happens that they really do fly a lot more expelled people than other European airlines.
You’ re right: it’s not entirely their fault but their regulation allows them to object to this.
One of my commentators pointed out that my beloved government charters very expansive Beech 1900 from Carlson Wagon-lit to throw people back to their misery.
Sorry , eatbees, for being so long;-).
It’ such a pleasure to read your posts!

Comment from eatbees
Time: July 24, 2007, 18:43

@leblase — Somehow I think we (Americans) don’t even think of articulating a progressive foreign policy, although we all know what a progressive economic policy or health care policy or minority rights policy would look like. This may be because we are too blinded by the comforts of empire, which you touched on and which is why I quoted you, or because we think “I don’t know enough about it, so it’s best to leave it to experts” which is a big mistake. And the final reason, in recent years, is fear of being called a traitor if we dissent.

I agree with the commenter “Obama” above—even if he links to a site selling T-shirts—”I also hope [Obama’s] presidency doesn’t temporarily ‘re-brand’ our government so that the next politicians can use it to their advantage, and pervert his initial motives into something it shouldn’t be.” Electing a president with friendlier ideas isn’t the end of the road, but only the beginning. Our nation’s response to 9/11 was based on wrong moral assumptions that need to be pulled out by the root, IMHO. Accountablity needs to be restored to government, abuse of power needs to be exposed, and faith in democracy needs to be restored both internally and on the international scale. This will mean hard choices, and even with the best of intentions, Obama or a different president will need strong popular support and even pressure to succeed.

Meanwhile, I’m considering relocating to a small, less wealthy nation where democracy might still work on a smaller scale :S

About the long comments, please continue, because it makes me feel less like I’m monopolizing the debate!

Comment from Hisham
Time: July 27, 2007, 11:06

Great Post! I hope the American public won’t be fooled by yet another crook. I’m a moroccan and I have to admit I liked his character when Obama first came to light but I rapidly changed my mind when I saw his performance in front of a packed AIPAC Forum last March. He’s another Israel apologist plain and simple (how could he be otherwise?)
It’s always refreshing to see that there are still americans who’re not fooled by this two business parties system which is fundamentally flawed and undemocratic.

Comment from eatbees
Time: July 31, 2007, 17:43

@Hisham — I think Obama is going through an evolution on foreign policy, as is shown by his recent comments on being willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba and others without preconditions. I hope he was just getting the AIPAC stuff out of the way so Israel’s supporters (who are quick to condemn) wouldn’t be doubting him throughout the campaign. Since he is new to foreign policy, I think we need to give him a few months to think these things through. There are still many things I admire in Obama’s character, and I see criticisms like mine as positive, because if he becomes aware that some of his would-be supporters feel this way, it might stiffen his spine a little against the other side.

Thanks for your visit, and I’m sorry I took so long to reply. I like your blog and I’ll stop there again!

Comment from homeyra
Time: August 1, 2007, 08:25

Just saw this at the Fanonite, thought it might interest you.
Obama for America or Israel?
(Please notice that I didn’t email the link :))

Comment from Sefina
Time: February 2, 2008, 23:32

Regardless, Obama is in no easy position running for President and he must work and be more cautious than his opponant Hillary. The history of America is putting much pressure on Obama and it is a fact becasue he’s black it will be more of a challenge. Let the man be and do his thing. Dont be a crab in a bucket. If and when he is President it will be a whole different picture all the while keeping to his word. You think he has a voice now wait till then. Hundreds and thousands will regret that they did not vote for barak Obama–yes you can!!!

Comment from mona
Time: April 16, 2008, 10:06

Obama came to Indiana, to explain something he’d said…about some small town citizens being ‘bitter’ as if he already knew that he had already been selected to be President. It was an interesting ‘slip’ when Obama made the connection about those who are bitter about this ‘Change’ being those who cling to God and Guns, yet makes no difference, so they become bitter, and vote on matters like immigration and abortion to vent this frustration of the coming ‘change’.

Where I was raised, I saw many a bumper sticker that read, “God, Guns, and Guts…. lets keep all three” and I always understood why we should. We don’t embrace our faith, or clean our guns because we’re frustrated because our weapons that we have relied on for so long have suddenly become useless in preventing this ‘change’

But Obama is correct when he claims that citizens are angry…not because nobody is listening, but rather because nobody is speaking out, because they have been forced to forfeit their freedom of speech, they have been forced by political correctness to surrender their ‘Guts’….afraid they may say something that would result in being labeled a racist and ostracized by society. They are bitter because they have had their freedoms removed…a change that is never welcome.

Maybe they are bitter when they see others without any experience being given special preference and promotion simply because of the color of their skin. Maybe their bitter because they’ve lost their way of supporting their family due to those who are willing to do their jobs at half the wage because they have no lawful right being in America. Maybe their bitter when they are constantly made to feel guilty for the victimization of Blacks when they nor their relatives had anything whatsoever to do with the slave trade their own prophet Mohammed was involved with. Bitter because anybody can come into this country and make this same claim against any/all whites and receive special treatment, special preference in job contracts and government money…as if we have fallen into this same trap of trying to pay for peace.

Which brings me to who I think is the bitter one….Obama’s wife, since she can’t keep her mouth shut long enough till after the swearing in before she starts revealing what this ‘change’ is all about….what this Black Liberation Theology is all about. Mrs. Obama claimed that Americans needed to give up some of their pie to pay for this change…Glen Beck speaking as a true American brought this ‘socialistic elitism’ to our attention, however did not make the connection to the origin of this new ‘change’

This surrender of land or wealth in the name of peace did not originate from the B.L.O. Black Liberation Organizations, but is the very peace plan that has been implemented by the United Nations.

In the early 1940’s an Islamic plan was implemented to establish the boundaries of the Islamic domain, as this is the primary and ultimate goal of Islam…global domination.

The plan came from a book by Maulana Muhammed Ali written in 1942 entitled, ‘The New World Order’ (which no doubt would explain why there are so many misleading experts on ‘The New World Order’ covering the real conspiracy by the same name.)

This book entitled The New World Order was written a Muslim, and presented a solution to the main problem facing the United Nations….peace. The plan for change, for this New World Order was an Islamic solution for an Islamic problem, and under the guise of Justice, extortion became global law, for the peace plan presented, adopted, and now enforced is extortion, plain and simple, for it demands the ‘Haves’ to surrender land or wealth in exchange for peace from the ‘Have nots’

And this is the Theology of which Mrs. Obama speaks of when she refers to us surrendering our pie. But why is she so open about her intentions? Because she like her church knows that this is also the United Nations plan for America, since it is law being enforced by Americas military already, and why the military is indoctrinating troops into Islamic law already.

The United Nations adopted this plan called the New World Order and Islamic agents were sent into the interiors of the enemies of Islam (Israel and America) to plant the seeds of ‘change’ thus came into being the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Israel, and the Black Liberation Organizations in America.

We know about the P.L.O. but not about the B.L.O. AKA… The N.O.I. or Nation of Islam under Minister Louis Farrakhan. This organization began with an unknown, unidentified Muslim contacted a Black man named Fard (AKA Elijah Mohammed) and informed him that he was the Savior of the Black man, that the white man was the devil and Christianity is poison, and they must change their names, to Islamic names, and demand land in exchange for peace.

And this is the most troubling part of this ‘coming change’ that not only is it extortion…but worse…it gives birth to terrorist, it promotes terrorism, for in order for the ‘Haves’ to feel the need to surrender land or wealth to the ‘Have nots’ they must be forced into ‘treaties’ motivated by terror, thus the reason terrorism is used and justified, for it is Islamic law, adopted by the United Nations, and enforced by a Country who claims to be at war against terrorism.

Rep. Steve King R.-IA claimed ‘that should Obama win the Presidency, that terrorist would be dancing in the streets’ A very astute observation articulated, and no doubt he has had to pay the price for vocalizing his ‘Guts’, but the point that was missed was that the terrorist have already been dancing in the streets…long before this election.

The terrorist began dancing in the streets when America began enforcing the United Nations Peace Plan (Islamic law AKA The New World Order) They began dancing when Reagan began arming Terrorist to defeat the Russian’s war on terror (the same terrorist were having to fight now) The terrorist danced in the streets when Bush Sr. announced the New World Order in the United Nations. The terrorist danced in the streets when Clinton brought the P.L.O and Israel together in Washington, for Democracy was being established in the Holy Land, by this U.N. peace plan of Israel surrendering land or wealth in exchange for peace.

Thus Democracy was established in the Holy Land, and the citizens could now lawfully elect their leaders, and they did. The intimidated fearful citizens exposed to the decades of Islamic terrorism quickly elected the terrorist organization of Hamas, and now this group our Government properly identified, as a terrorist organization was suddenly a properly elected government that America would be dealing with. Who says that crime does not pay?

And it is this example that perpetuates terrorist to continue to use terror to extort land or wealth. Evidence that Democracy is a dream, and a nightmare when established in a land where the people dwell in fear and deserve not the freedoms of a true Democracy. Yet we shed the blood of our children to fight against terrorism? Or is it worse than we thought, and our children are being used to fight Islamic civil wars?

Regardless, we are in a war that we have already lost. Democracy is what caused this curse upon Israel, who has surrendered land and wealth to those using terror to extort, and we are just beginning to reap the consequences for cursing Israel, for embracing this Islamic law, and becoming just as guilty.

Obama doesn’t understand the bitterness of his own white bloodline…those who have paid the price, watching their land become invaded by those who care nothing for our way of life, but to the contrary want to establish change, to establish an independent land within America under the authority of Islamic law…and that is the core of this Black Liberation Theology as they are calling it today…the goal…to establish an Independent African/Islamic Nation upon our lands.

The problem is that Islamic law calls our faith, our belief in the Only Begotten Son a ‘Monstrous Thing’ an unforgivable sin against Islamic law, punishable by death, and this is the foundation of Islam, and the reason for their Jihad, to eradicate Christianity, and abolish our faith, to establish Islam as the one and only true religion.

Our faith in the Holy Trinity is ‘shirk’ according to Islamic law, and must be punished.

It is unbelievable that is Government would be sponsoring terrorism and enforcing lawlessness like the New World Order, but even more unbelievable is the fact that this government expects us Christians to support and maintain this hostile religion against our will, that we must tolerate those who come into our lands with the intentions of taking our lands and eradicating our faith, and making us bow to the will of Allah.

Let our ‘bitterness’ be completely understood. We don’t like to be threatened. We don’t like our freedoms removed. We don’t like those coming into our lands claiming we owe them what is ours, and thinking to ‘change’ our way of life. We don’t like sacrificing our children for lies or to enforce lawlessness, or promote terrorism….call us bitter now, but later you will call us bold, for we will not bow to Islamic law, and we will expose this spineless government for what it is.

The book of Revelation talks about the last days when there would come one speaking great things…thinking to ‘change’ times..it’s time to wake up. It’s all going down.

Comment from tydaylita
Time: December 19, 2008, 03:55

Hi all!

As a fresh http://www.eatbees.com user i just wanted to say hello to everyone else who uses this board 8-)

Write a comment