In Part 3 of “The Troubling Election of Barack Obama”, I outlined points 1) to 6), the first six troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
In Part 4 below, I outline points 7) to 11), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
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!
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
“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!
In Part 5 of “The Troubling Election of Barack Obama”, I will outline points 12) to 16), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.