No Such Thing As An Opinion!

Reader Request: Why did voters change their preferences from 2006 to 2010? PART TWO: 2008 elections. The troubling election of Barack Obama PARTS 1 to 6


In this series of articles, I will refer to Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro.

You may be wondering why I've chosen to reference the name Barry Soetoro and not Barack Obama.  Simple.  I found more credible evidence (ie. actual documentation) that references the name Barry Soetoro rather than Barack Obama. Yes, really!


Now, how did this bizarre situation occur? How could there be so little existing evidence in support of such basic, non-controversial information: one's legal name?


Well, Soetoro has covered up the evidence!  So we simply don't know what his legal name is!


On January 21, 2009, amid the worst recession since the 1930s, was Soetoro in a rush to help the desperate economy?


Apparently not. On his first day in office, he acted to ensure that he could make it illegal for anyone to release particular documents about his life. Yes, really!



Here's the executive order he signed, order 13489. It states in part:

"
If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order."

In other words, the President now has the power to tell the Archivist which Presidential records to disclose to the public, and which to censor.  But remember, he needs to invoke executive privilege in order to censor his documents.  What's the reason that he would even enjoy this executive privilege in the first place? After all, didn't he campaign on transparency?


"(g) A ‘substantial question of executive privilege' exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch."


By itself, that makes sense. You wouldn't want to release documents that would harm national security, right?


But what documents has Soetoro apparently actually ordered the Archivist to censor? The
following documents:

"Kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records".


Yes, you read that right. If the documents were indeed censored according to the executive order (and not censored by other means), he's censoring the basic information from his life history on the grounds that their disclosure "might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch"!


How absurd is that?
That alone, I would think, is a crime, to pretend that the release of a document showing school grades would impair national security or the law enforcement process!  Actually, the opposite could occur as a result of their release...their release could actually aid the law enforcement process if they aided in enforcement of the Constitution, which demands that a President be born in America! 

So, what are the most recent credible documents, if any available exist, that would shed light on what Soetoro's legal name is?  The most recent that I'm aware of is a
document provided by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta Indonesia, where Soetoro apparently attended school as a child (apparently Soetoro could not censor this document, since it came from Indonesia, not the USA).

The document is the form that enrolled him in the school.  It says that his name is "Barry Soetoro", his religion is "Islam" and his nationality "Indonesian" (Yes, I hear the snickers now.  Soetoro apparently lied about his religion too!)


Is it possible Soetoro lied on the school enrollment forms?  Well, note that the school he enrolled in was actually a Catholic school...hence, if Soetoro was actually a Christian (as he now claims), there would've been little incentive for him to lie about his religion on his school forms, because you'd think he would've fit in at a Catholic school better if he was Christian rather than Muslim (although you could argue there might be long term benefits of appearing to be Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country).


If he was actually an American citizen, I doubt it would've been possible for him to get away with lying about his nationality.  The forms state that he was an Indonesian citizen, and one would think that it would be routine for a school to verify such information prior to enrolling a child.


It would make sense for his name to be Soetoro.  After all, he
lived in Indonesia with his step-father Lolo Soetoro, and hence he may have been adopted by Soetoro and legally taken his name.

But we can't verify what Soetoro's legal name is, to this day!  He's censored all of the documents. What a fraud!


So, I don't know what his legal name is.  Even
lawsuits against him don't know what name to use on the court documents, so they variably use Barry Soetoro and Barack Obama!

The most recent credible evidence I've been able to locate uses the name Barry Soetoro, so I will use that name below, where I analyze the troubling 2008 election of Soetoro.



PRELUDE TO THE 2008 ELECTIONS

In Part One, I established that midterm voters in 2006 opted to vote for Democrats in order to show their displeasure with Congress and Bush's policies, particularly the Iraq war.

But the 2006 midterm elections seemed to be only a partial victory for voters.  They forced the Republicans out of power, but Bush himself was still in power.


After 2008, Bush would be gone.  He couldn't run again. Voters could look for a fresh start.  Would they vote Republican or Democrat? Well, Congressional
approval ratings had dipped yet again to record lows in 2008. But why? Wasn't the Iraq war starting to improve? Yes, but people still wanted to see the end of the five year long war.

And more importantly, the recession was getting worse in the fall of 2008, and the public was becoming more aware that government regulators were simply allowing criminal banks and hedge funds to destroy the stock market for profit.  How could the public
not become more aware?  Their portfolios were being devastated, and after searching for answers they eventually found them online.

In 2006 and 2007,
thousands of comments flooded the SEC website when the SEC allowed public comment on proposed changes to a rule named "Reg SHO". (Anger over criminal theft in the financial world had started to become widespread in 2005, pushing the SEC to publish the daily Reg SHO list of stocks.  The list published the names of stocks that had been so victimized by counterfeiting that high percentages of their stock's total existing float were counterfeit).  In 2006 and 2007, the SEC had been proposing changes to Reg SHO.

Look at the public anger out there in 2007:


 





  


The above comments are
tame compared to many other frothing, swearing, threatening comments made by the public.

So, there was a
huge amount of public anger, at least among the investing community, against Bush and government by the time the 2008 elections occurred (and rightly so!)  One could expect to see the public become very receptive toward a candidate who offered change from the status quo.  Soetoro was the candidate that did offer that change; he constantly used the words "hope" and "change"! Perfect timing!

I argue that many people simply became so swept up with the charisma of Soetoro, so swept up with the idea of genuine governmental change, so swept up with the idea of electing a black man, that they voted for Soetoro.


But along the way, people became disturbingly irrational.  VERY disturbingly.  I am going to now provide a list of circumstances surrounding Soetoro prior to his election.  Read the list, and then try to figure out how it was that any rational person could even consider voting for Soetoro:



THE TROUBLING ACTIONS OF BARRY SOETORO


Soetoro has lied about many, many things.  After reading the list below, it should be obvious to you that his words are often worthless.


Why does he lie so often? Well, perhaps he simply says whatever lies he needs to in order to get elected.  It's that simple.


If his lies are so successful that he develops a cult-like following of tear shedding individuals (perhaps "individual" isn't the best word to use to describe someone who ignores rationality and supports Soetoro), even better.


If you investigate the timing of his flip flops on the many issues I will list below, you will notice that he changed many of his positions
right after he beat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination, as soon as his opponent became John McCain.

Why would his position suddenly change? Well, in order to beat Hilary, since Democrats were the ones nominating him, he wanted to pretend to support the most popular Democratic positions. The more liberal ones.  Once his opponent became McCain, the entire electorate were now the ones voting, and hence
Soetoro simply pretended to support what he needed to in order to become more palatable.

Of course, the public doesn't know what Soetoro
really believes.

So, back to the list.  Where to start? There are so many troubling actions committed by Barry Soetoro pre-election.  I will list them below in no particular order.



1) Pretending to be against NAFTA and for the middle class

In February 2008, he railed against NAFTA and its effect on US unemployment and the outsourcing of American jobs.

Also in February 2008, it was
reported that aides to Soetoro privately assured Canadians that Soetoro actually had no intention of ending NAFTA!

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 
And people actually voted for him! 


2) Soetoro's 2001-2002 Illinois Senate votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act

There are times when an abortion fails and the baby is born alive.  A nurse, Jill Stanek, had complained that such babies weren't being treated humanely...that people were just letting the babies lay there for hours to die in soiled linen.

As a result, the
Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced.  At the federal level, it was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate (which is of course an extremely unusual event in Congress).

However, Soetoro (who wasn't a member of the federal Senate at that time) actually
voted against the Illinois State version of the bill!  If you read the transcripts of the debate (audio here), it appears that Soetoro was less concerned with assisting a helpless child than he was concerned with the rights of the mother and the potential liabilities of the doctor:

"...one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and
what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation".

"...I suspect
and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."

"...it's important to understand that
this issue is ultimately about abortion and not live births."

Shouldn't Soetoro's cold stance immediately raise red flags?


What does one's stance on abortion have to do with the Act? Once a birth occurs following a failed abortion, the birth has already occurred! How much does abortion have to do with it at that point?


And Soetoro
coldly discusses "burdens" and "liabilities"...what about appearing to treat the child/fetus humanely? This is outrageous!

Worse, Soetoro later
lied about his position on the issue (suggesting that even he knew that his actions seemed cruel):

"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.
That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

So, Soetoro claimed that he only voted against the state Act because it lacked a provision that the federal Act contained. 


When it was shown that Soetoro lied, that the state act indeed
did include the federal provision, Soetoro's campaign admitted their lie:

"His campaign yesterday
acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate..."


3) Soetoro was ranked by the National Journal as 2007's most liberal of all 100 Senators

Here is the ranking. For Soetoro to be the most liberal of all 100 Senators, that means, to put it nicely, he is not a moderate.  It means he's in the minority, the extremes of the bell curve (although to be fair, having a minority position on something hardly necessarily means that the person is an extremist.  Some of my own positions are often not held by the majority; at least until others become aware of my logic behind them.  Unfortunately for Soetoro, however, most liberal policies are illogical.  Much of my site exposes this).

Now, given that
only about 20% of Americans identify as liberal, and given that even fewer people would identify as being among the most liberal, it seems reasonable that a very small minority of Americans, perhaps 5%, might identify with Soetoro's brand of liberalism.

So, perhaps 5% of Americans share Soetoro's views, yet about 50% of voters voted for him? Somehow he got elected! Did he dupe everyone? Or did people dupe themselves?



4)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding public financing

If a candidate accepts
public financing, it means that he/she will receive federal money to be used for the election campaign.  But acceptance also means that there will be a fund-raising limit put on how much money he/she can receive from the private sector.

During an interview
, Soetoro said that he would accept public financing if McCain did.  One reason given was Soetoro's desire to limit the amounts of money McCain would raise from private sources.

In June 2008, Soetoro
suddenly flip flopped again, stating that he would not accept public financing, even though McCain kept his word and agreed to accept public financing!

If that wasn't bad enough, Soetoro
bizarrely put a spin on the story by claiming that since his website was accessible by the public, and since he was accepting donations on his website he was, in effect, accepting a parallel type of public financing!

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!


5)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding telecom immunity

Under Bush, telecommunication companies assisted the Administration in their wiretapping efforts.


There was talk of passing a new law that would grant the companies immunity from legal action resulting from their actions.

 
In October 2007, Soetoro spokesman Bil Burton said:

"'To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.'"


In mid-2008, Soetoro
suddenly decided to support legislation granting legal immunity to the telecoms!

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! And people actually voted for him!


6)
Soetoro's flip flop regarding withdrawal of troops from Iraq

In January 2007, Soetoro
offered legislation that set a deadline for all troops to be pulled out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. That date was before the election even occurred!

In September 2007,  Soetoro then suddenly
refused to pledge that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. So, Soetoro changed his stance from being out of Iraq in 2008 to potentially being out of Iraq sometime after 2013! Five plus years is not a subtle change.

In July 2008,  Soetoro
again flip flopped and said that on his very first day in office he would begin the process ensuring that all troops would be out of Iraq within sixteen months of his taking office.

Embarrassingly for him (is "embarrassing" a strong enough word?!), in July 2008, Soetoro then began to
waffle on his position, saying that he could "refine" the troop withdrawal plan.  Imagine that! Did he think so little of the mental capacity and the memory of the American people that he didn't even bother to wait longer than a few weeks before changing his position yet again?

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 

And remember that Bush's position on the war in Iraq was one of the main reasons for Bush's unpopularity!
And even though Soetoro flip flopped on an issue of such importance to the electorate, people actually voted for him! 


7)
Soetoro's dubious comments regarding the separation of church and state

During the Bush years, federal grants given to religious organizations could be used by religious organizations to further their objectives.  The funds could be used discriminately to advance religious causes.  Bush's position was certainly a position that would please more people among the right than among the left.


During July 2007, Soetoro
said this about the separation of church and state:

"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to
remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves."

In July 2008, Soetoro
suddenly changed his position, announcing plans to actually expand Bush's programs:

"Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate
Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith."

"'The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone,' Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. 'We need all hands on deck.'"


Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! 

To many left wing voters, the separation of church and state is extremely important.  Yet people actually voted for Soetoro!



8)
Soetoro's dubious logic regarding his 2001 vote against the death penalty for gang related activity

Chicago had a very serious problem with gang related murders.  In 2001, as a State Senator, Soetoro
voted against a new law meant to crack down on gang activity.

Although some of Soetoro's reasoning may be sound, one aspect is
very troubling:

"'There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color,' he said. 'I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.'"


Can you believe that?! 
One interpretation of what he said is that he thinks it's wrong to target gangs simply because their membership includes more blacks and Hispanics than it does whites!

So is a main determinant in Soetoro's eyes not whether a crime is committed, but the ethnic background of the person committing the crime? 


There are other flaws with his logic. Why doesn't he apply similar logic when considering the
benefits of the law?

If Soetoro really
was concerned with the plight of blacks and Hispanics, wouldn't action against black and Hispanic gang members, even if the action seemed unfairly discriminatory towards them, benefit the black and Hispanic community as a whole much more than it would benefit the white community?  Aren't victims of gang activity much more likely to be black or Hispanic?  Wouldn't blacks and Hispanics overall benefit from implementation of the law he voted against?  (I'm not suggesting that he should have voted for the law if he truly felt that the law was discriminatory...however, does it seem to you like Soetoro actually worries about the ethics of a decision?)

This was back in 2001.  In 2008, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of
post-racial change! And people actually voted for him!


9)
Soetoro's cold answer and indifference regarding a question about human life 

During August 2008, Soetoro
was asked at what point a baby should receive human rights. He answered by stating that an answer to that question was "above my pay grade."

As sweetness-light.com correctly
mentions, "If it is above his pay grade to answer questions about abortion, then where does he get off voting on the issue — as he has in the Illinois legislature?"

Addressing the cold personality of Obama, they continue by saying: "Mr. Obama’s answers are so generic he sounds like one of those computers that has been programmed to sound like a human being."


During September 2008, Soetoro admitted the problem with his attiitude, and clarified by
saying:

"'It's a pretty tough question,' he continued. 'And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.'"


Theological?  How is the question theological?  It's about how one defines things and about costs versus benefits! Perhaps Soetoro could use a primer, beginning with
my own article on the subject.

Soetoro's indifference toward human life seems to be very troubling.
And people actually voted for him! 


10) Soetoro's birth certificate controversy prior to the election


Philip J. Berg
is a Democrat who "is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania."

During August 2008, Berg sued Soetoro, claiming that Soetoro is a fraud who was not eligible to be US President.  Such a lawsuit (especially coming from a Democrat), as well as the evidence in support of the plaintiff, should've been front page news and been scrutinized heavily!


Instead, the mainstream media
buried one of the most important stories in history!

Shockingly, Soetoro
refused to respond to the lawsuit by the December deadline! (Although that deadline was after the November election date).

Remember, at this very same time, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  Although the mainstream media was attempting to bury the story about the lawsuit, many people using the internet were aware of it, and larger numbers of people had by then been aware of the birth certificate controversy for many months. 
And yet people actually voted for him! 


11) Soetoro's flip flop regarding the embargo of Cuba


During
this video presentation, presumably from 2004, Soetoro says:

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo of Cuba..."


But then in August 2007, now speaking before Cuban-Americans, Soetoro
said:

"the embargo was 'an important inducement for change' which he would not automatically remove as president."


Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  And yet people actually voted for him!  



12) Soetoro's refusal to wear an American flag lapel


Not only did Soetoro refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin, he actually admitted the omission was done purposely:

"'I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest,' the Democratic presidential candidate told the reporter Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa. 'Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.'

Obama touched upon the exchange again Wednesday at a speech in Independence, Iowa.

'I haven't worn that pin in probably a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing the lapel pin but not acting very patriotic,' he said. 'My attitude is that I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on you lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those ones who serve.'"

That logic is so bizarre, how could it not be likely to be representative of a desire by Soetoro to be unpatriotic or anti-American?

It's true that patriotism is better demonstrated by acting patriotically rather than simply wearing the lapel;  but why wouldn't one do both?  Why wouldn't a patriotic person act patriotically and wear the pin? 

How could Soetoro not be unpatriotic, or worse, anti-American?

Now listen, I certainly think that people have the right to be upset with many or most governmental actions conducted by their country.  I am certainly disturbed by many actions the US government has engaged in over the years.

But if that's the case in Soetoro's situation, why would he act unpatriotic?  Does that mean that he
doesn't like his own country, and wouldn't want to improve it?  Wouldn't he want to improve the country?

If he does want to improve it, is it wise to act unpatriotic? Exactly whose votes is he aiming to receive? Foreigners from anti-American nations can't vote in the US election, after all!


And if he is disturbed by the USA's actions, is he upset with the government or the people?  The government certainly isn't representative of the people.  Aside from being common sense, one need only look at the public's very low approval ratings of Congress.


If he
is upset with the people, then what's the point of being elected?  Why govern people you dislike?  For control?  For payback?  To destroy them? What exactly is Soetoro's agenda?

So Soetoro actually admitted that he acted intentionally when refusing to wear the American flag lapel.  And people actually voted for him!


13) Soetoro's refusal to place his hand over his chest when the National Anthem was sung

While the National Anthem was sung, and while competitors Bill Richardson and Hilary Clinton placed their hand over their chest, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest.

When confronted about this, Soetoro did not deny this!  He claims that he has never refused to sing the National Anthem, but when you read closely you'll notice he never actually denies that he didn't place his hand on his chest!

Of course, it's not realistic to believe that a US Senator did not know that etiquette is for one to place the hand over the chest.  Obviously, he would've seen this transpire dozens of times over his career.

But even if one mistakenly didn't place their hand over their chest, what would one do if later confronted about it?  Would one admit the mistake and be sure to clarify the situation, or would one just be silent about it, implying that it may have been done purposely?  The obvious answer should be clear.

And we know what Soetoro didn't do.  He didn't deny his actions.  At least not in the letter referenced in the article above.

So, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, even though his actions were blatant by comparison with the actions of his competitors (who did place their hands over their chest).  And people actually voted for him!


14) Soetoro's association with the terrorist Bill Ayers

First: who is Bill Ayers? Answer:

"In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group."

According to Wikipedia, Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days" says that "Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." 

It is unclear as to whether Ayers still supported terrorism at the time Soetoro started campaigning for President.  During 2001, Ayers had made comments that could be interpreted as suggesting that he didn't regret the bombings, that he wished more bombs had been set.   However, Ayers said that the comments were taken out of context, and he condemned terrorism in 2008.  Did he repent only as a result of pressure?

Look at this picture of Ayers standing on the American flag. Remind you of anyone? It reminds me of Soetoro's refusal to wear the American flag lapel, his refusal to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, and his wife's unpatriotic comments.

In 2009, Ayers was barred from entering Canada.

So, what is Soetoro's connection to the former terrorist?

Soetoro and Ayers were described as friends with similar political interests.  Soetoro visited the home of Ayers, and both Ayers and Soetoro served on the board of a Chicago foundation.


"Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board, which Ayers chaired for two years."

"The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library. One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle."

So, they knew each other at least fairly well, and saw each other at least fairly often.  Was their friendship very strong?  Did they both support terrorism? That is not clear.

Perhaps one should ask Soetoro himself what their relationship was.

When it was exposed that Soetoro attended the function at Ayers' home, Soetoro's chief strategist, Axelrod said

"Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history."

Can you believe that?!  That is not very believable at all. How could an up and comer not know the terrorist history of a well known person in the neighborhood?

Also in support of my points, note these points:

1) In Bill Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent", Ayers mentions the prominent people that live in his neighborhood, and mentions "writer Barack Obama." (Regardless of the timeline, it suggests that Ayers may have known Obama personally at one point).

2) Soetoro, as state Senator, reviewed Ayers' book and provided a positive review.

It is very clear they knew of each other.

During a debate, Soetoro was asked about his relationship with Ayers. He said:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. 

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George."

Now, I don't know what your impression is, but my impression is that that doesn't exactly sound like a stinging rebuke of Bill Ayers, even with the inclusion of the word "detestable". 

Worse, Soetoro fails to address the fact that Soetoro's choice to 1) attend a function at the home of a terrorist, 2) sit on the board with a terrorist and 3) attend panel discussions with a terrorist are allcould easily, perhaps likely, reflect on Soetoro and his values.  Soetoro made these choices as an adult, not as an eight year old. events that

Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to
associate with a former terrorist many times over the years.  And people actually voted for him! 


15) Soetoro's association with anti-American Reverend Wright

Reverend Wright was the Pastor at the church that Soetoro attended for decades. He said
"blacks should not sing 'God Bless America'" but rather "'God damn America.'"

Here is some text from Wright's sermons:

'We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans..."

State terrorism against Palestinians? First, it's arguable as to who should be able to live in Israel proper.  But we do know that Israel's occupation of some added territories (such as the West Bank) occurred after Israel was attacked by several Arab countries.  We do know that terrorist attacks by "Palestinians" in Israel far outnumber terrorist attacks by Israelis in the territories.  And we do know that people of "Palestinian" descent can live and vote in Israel, unlike most, if not all, of the Arab world.

And Wright actually believes that the USA supported state terrorism against the Palestinians? Where and when and how?


Here are more comments:

"'The government gives them the drugs...'"

“'Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary ain't never been called a n——-.'” 

“'They will not only attack you if you try to point out what’s happening in white America. U.S. of KKK A.'”

"'We started the AIDS virus...'"

What was Soetoro's response to the expose of his relationship with Wright?

During March 2008, Soetoro said:

"'The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.'"

Now, Soetoro named his book after the first sermon of Wright ("The Audacity of Hope"); Wright wedded Soetoro and his wife, and baptized his children.  Also, Soetoro donated $22,500 to Wright's church.  Is it reasonable to believe that Soetoro would be unaware of Wright's hostile views? Of course not.

During his famous speech in March 2008, Soetoro defended the man but not his words, claiming:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

"Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way."

Now, since Soetoro was talking about the possibility of switching churches during the past, it's clear the context is the past.  But notice that Soetoro strongly implies that he actually did hear the troubling sermons of Wright (during the past)!

This is implied by the comment: "...if
all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets..."  This implies that he knew of the sermons, but knew of other information as well.  He goes on to imply that he overlooked those sermons as a result of other aspects of Wright's personality!

This is very important, of course, because Soetoro had previously denied that he had been aware of Wright's troubling comments! 
This is the very first time that I've ever seen this gaffe exposed!

Soetoro said:

"Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."

Is that believable?  Not likely.

Later in 2008, during a debate, Soetoro said:

"Well, let me just respond to two things. Absolutely, many of these remarks were objectionable. I've already said that I didn't hear them because I wasn't in church that day. I didn't learn about those statements until much later. But...

Gibson:

But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him: 'You can get kind of rough in sermons. So, what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.' I'm quoting the reverend.

But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation? And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?"


If there was any doubt, it seems that Soetoro was aware of the Reverend's comments after all.

Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to associate with a Pastor who made many troubling, anti-American comments.  And people actually voted for him! 


16) Soetoro's association with Michelle Obama

During the 2008 Democratic nomination process,  Michelle Obama
said:

"'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."


Now, is it believable that Soetoro would've been unaware of her unpatriotic views prior to marrying her?


No, it's not very believable.  Now, Michelle Obama has a right to be unhappy about things her country has done.  The problem is this:  I find that people who are verbally unpatriotic also tend to be people who are dangerously illogical left-wing radicals.  Conversely, I find that people who are logical (and are unhappy with many aspects of their country) tend to be verbally patriotic.


Remember, during his campaign,
Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change!  He had chosen to marry a woman who may have been an unpatriotic, radical anti-American woman.  And people actually voted for him! 


SUMMARY OF THE TROUBLING 2008 ELECTION OF SOETORO

The sixteen factors identified above are, although lengthy, not a complete list of the troubling factors surrounding Soetoro prior to his election.  However, the list includes most of the factors I find to be serious.

There were
so many troubling circumstances.  Some of those circumstances were extremely troubling.  There is no doubt that a rational voter should have easily made the determination that Soetoro was not a good candidate for President.  The election shouldn't have been close at all.

But is it possible that most voters actually did agree that Soetoro was a troubling candidate, yet chose to select him over McCain, thinking that Soetoro was the lesser of two evils?


No, that's not plausible.  There were very few, if any at all, troubling circumstances surrounding McCain.  It's possible he may have flip flopped on an issue or two, but I can't think of many prominent flip flops off hand (although I have a feeling he may have flip flopped on immigration reform).  He certainly was not a serial flip flopper like Soetoro.  In fact, McCain chose to stick to his word
even when Soetoro flip flopped on a mutual agreement (ie. public financing).  In fact, McCain chose to act in an upstanding (although naive and unwise) manner by choosing not to attack Soetoro on the birth certificate issue.

Also, I am not aware of McCain having supported any significantly controversial positions prior to the election, except perhaps one: his support for legislation granting illegal aliens what amounted to amnesty.  Such a position was very atypical of a Republican.  However, I wouldn't think that his position would have hurt him with Democrats choosing between Soetoro and McCain, since Democrats tend to agree with McCain's position, and it's reasonable to believe that Soetoro would've supported the position as well.  In fact, you would think that if voters had to choose between McCain and Soetoro based simply on the immigration issue, you would think they would choose McCain simply because he was willing to take the hard path by resisting fellow Republicans!


There is another reason to believe that voters didn't believe Soetoro was the lesser of two evils:  You rarely heard people make comments that suggested they were begrudgingly voting for Soetoro.  In fact, the opposite occurred.  The electorate was energized, there was a huge turnout of voters (
the most since the 1960s), and tears of happiness flowed from the eyes of many cult-like Soetoro voters on election night.

Is it possible that some voters chose Soetoro over McCain due to the belief that Soetoro would handle the economy better than McCain would?  Yes, that's very likely.  But again, irrational.


First, voters often boot out the party that was in power when economic troubles occurred.   However, that's likely not a rational response, for two reasons:  1) The economic troubles could've still occurred if the incumbents weren't in power, and in fact the troubles may have been
worse if the incumbents weren't in power; 2) Voters should aim to determine which party would do the better job going forward, regardless of the past (although one could weakly argue that it's worthwhile to punish a party that governs poorly, regardless of the future outlook).

Also, Soetoro had revealed very few details about what he planned to do to revive the economy.  He was always very vague, talking about "hope" and "change", charismatically like a cult leader.  One idea he floated was the idea of his vetoing legislation if it included pork barrel spending.  But of course, it wouldn't have been rational for voters to believe Soetoro given his troubling history of flip flops.


Many voters likely voted for Soetoro simply because their investment portfolio had been devastated under the watch of Bush.   In fact, I remember polls showing that something like two thirds of wealthy investors chose to support Soetoro.


True, there are quite a few reasons to believe that the Republican Bush and the SEC were very corrupt when it came to assisting with theft of the middle class investment community.  However, I see no reason for voters to have believed that the situation would be better under Soetoro than McCain.   What about the fact that Soetoro was a Democrat, not part of Bush's party?  Well, the stock market crash in 2000 occurred under the watch of a Democrat, Clinton, and there were donor finance scandals that surrounded Clinton and Al Gore.  And of course, there was no reason to believe that Soetoro would improve the situation because he was a good guy, because the sixteen factors above are very suggestive that he is
not a good guy.

Is it possible that voters believed that Soetoro truly believed (and intended to enact) his original positions, and flip flopped only in order to win the election?  Yes, that's possible.  But, for many reasons, that doesn't make it rational to vote for him, given the very illogical fiscal policies associated with his extreme liberalism and given his suspected anti-Americanism and/or unpatriotic actions.


So my conclusion is that Americans were very irrational.  There were huge amounts of evidence suggesting that Soetoro was a liar, a crook, and probably not a good person.  But I don't believe that
most Americans who voted for him are also crooks, or evil (although I do believe that evil people were probably more likely to vote for Soetoro than McCain).  I believe many simply got duped by him, and by their own emotions and desires, and by their inability to be logical.  Now, the media certainly aided in voters being duped, because they downplayed the circumstances surrounding Soetoro.  However, the stories were out there.  They weren't being buried, just downplayed.  Any reader of a newspaper would have been easily able to locate many stories.

So what does this mean? Are American voters somehow more gullible than other foreign voters?  Perhaps, but I'm not sure that any difference, if it exists at all, is as large as you may think.


Think about Germany in the 1930s.  Germans elected Hitler, even though Hitler had already published "Mein Kampf" prior to the election.  Now, I haven't read "Main Kampf", so I can't comment on it with authority, but the document's reputation (along with a
cursory review of the anti-Semitism outlined in the book) is such that you'd think it would've caused alarm in the mind of many voters. Yet they voted for Hitler.

The troubling thing is this:  over seventy years after Hitler's election, humanity has fallen prey to the same circumstances.  They chose to ignore troubling evidence and elect an illogical liar and crook.


Should people who voted for Soetoro ever be allowed to vote again?  Probably not.  I think that's obvious!


Some people might argue that it's unfair to prevent people from voting.  Well, even if that was the case, remember that only those voting for Soetoro would be the ones being treated unfairly.  I would argue that it's even
more unfair to allow the fools to vote and thereby harm an even greater number of people: society as a whole!

You do not want to allow fools to be voting and influencing the future of society at large.  These people may be rational when it comes to everyday life, but they appear to have been complete fools when it came to voting.  But that's another
topic.


In Part Three of "Reader Request: Why Did Voters Change Their Preferences from 2006 to 2010?", I will examine the 2010 midterm elections, and the belated revolt of the people against Obama.



HTML Comment Box is loading comments...

 

 

Make a Free Website with Yola.