Could it just be a coincidence this CFR member--a "NON-PARTISAN" group with powerful CEOs and rich people mind you--came out of no where to the top of the presidential race?
I think not. This 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason must have other intentions. According to Lynne Cheney, Bush and Cheney (Bush's 9th Cousin) are related to Obama. So all this brouhaha about wanting "change" and reform is going to happen, sure it will. But in the form of a new world order ;). Ofcourse I'm being sarcastic when I say that but still. We gotta keep our eyes open.
With CNN using reverse psychology to support Obama, the fact that he is in the CFR, and a Freemason scares me.
Now, I'm not trying to 'diss' your beloved oh so dear candidate but It makes me scared that a man with these credentials can be president.
You'll try to rebut that statement by saying so-and-so president was a freemason and blah blah blah. But did that President blind-side the candidacy? Did he have little experience. Let's be serious 6 months ago, no one knew who Obama was. Now, you can't even take a shit without hearing about how great he is.
I would be very skeptical about this man. I mean the CFR is loves business and Obama has strong ties to Wolf, Buffett, and Volcker.
Read the following about Obama's stance on war:
"Clearly, the likes of Wolf, Buffett and Volcker are backing Obama because they know that he has no intention of going anywhere near such a policy.
As for the question of war, those looking to the Obama campaign as a means of ending American militarism will be sorely disappointed. The Illinois Senator has vowed not to reduce the ballooning US military budget—which consumes an estimated $700 billion annually—but rather to increase it. He has called for the recruitment of another 65,000 soldiers for the Army as well as 27,000 more Marines. He has vowed to put “more boots on the ground” in the “war on terror,” the pretext invented by the Bush administration to justify “preemptive war,” i.e., military aggression aimed at asserting US hegemony over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.
As for Iraq itself, his promises to end the war are belied by his pledge to keep American forces in Iraq to defend “US interests” and conduct “counterterrorism operations,” a formula that would see tens of thousands of US soldiers and Marines continuing to occupy Iraq and repress its population for many years to come."
Taken from:The two faces of Barack Obama
Sure he wants to "end" the war in Iraq, but still defend "US interests". Wow. Enough said.
He's just another dirty politician like every other one still running.
Well, taken from an article from "rense.com", I don't see this connection with Freemasonry as being totally credible and even so, I see it more of an example of bias playing into the political arena. If people should know he is a freemason and should thus not vote for him because of that, then who's to say McCain being a member of the Keating Scandal or Clinton's taking money from Peter Paul and Stan Lee without acknowledgement shouldn't influence your opinion as well?
IF he happened to be a member of the freemasionic order, then it would be based on religious principles and should have very little effect on his credibility as President. What is it about the freemasons that scares everybody? I haven't heard anything... Do they pledge belief in a diety, do they pledge to be born free, do they pledge to act on their own free will?
One of their supposed requirements to be in their Order is:
"Be of good morals, and of good reputation."
Is that a bad thing?
Article:
http://www.rense.com/general80/obmw.htm
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
is well if you speak up against freemasonry, the unspeakable often happens. This blogger should be exalted for his courage!
Did you realize you got that quote from a very biased, socialist website? Of course they're going to spin their words against Obama!
Yes, it's very hard to find completely non-biased source on the internet, but finding evidence on any political page against the candidate, is not valid in my mind.
Do you realize that Obama is a democrat. If anything the socialists would FAVOR him over a republican.
+mspin
I am terribly confused.
The article was written by a biased, socialist website.
The article condemned Obama for being a Freemason.
Obama is a socialist???
How does that figure?
Something here is amiss. I am going to go ahead and say that Obama is not a member of a corrupt freemason political lobby, and that not all democrats are socialists. Trust me on this, I literally JUST read the Communist Manifesto, and Obama definately does NOT fit the role of a [complete] socialist...
If you look at the political spectrum, democrats are on the left and far left are the socialists. I'm just saying socialists would rather choose him over someone like Ron Paul for example. With his universal health care "plans" and all this talk about helping everyone, a socialist would most likely support him in an election over any other candidate. Where did I say he was a socialist? Can you show me a quote?
I'm quite confused as well.
+mspin
You are right, I mistook your person for claiming that Democrats were socialists, when, in fact, it was someone wlse who specifically said that Democrats = Socialists.
Instead of changing my comment, I will instead reply to this and say, even though I mistook you for someone else, it doesn't change the point that the article by a socialist website claiming Obama is a freemason is still not credible, because a socialist website wouldn't take shots at a democrat, by your logic.
So why would the site decide to denounce Obama's "apparently" socialist views by writing this article, calling him a freemason and thus untrustworthy?
To address your blatant statement about how sources are biased. Please tell me what's un-biased. lmao. It is impossible to have a unbiased article. A human has to write it, no? If you tell me FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, or any news network you will proceed to make me laugh. Each station is highly slanted to each political party.
To address your second statement, "..website wouldn't take shots at a democrat, by your logic." You obviously misunderstood the whole point of my blog. The whole point IS that they aren't supporting Obama. They have seen his underlying goals within the nation. If he was really a faithful democrat, they wouldn't have anything to say about him. Do you understand what I'm saying? Due to the fact that the "socialist website" isn't support him shows that he has other intentions then benefitting the citizens of America.
+mspin
So all this brouhaha about wanting "change" and reform is going to happen, sure it will.
This election has really made me wonder... is change even possible? Your blog just further supports my idea that it isn't and never will be with our current system.
I don't see what being a Freemason has to do with anything, unless you buy into the notion that Freemasons are devil worshippers, but something tells me that you don't.
The other stuff is interesting though.
Josh
"Ron Paul 2008"
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Free Masonry and funerals and you will discover information on many things...
religion and politics.
Approach with the open mind.
Lol, why so cryptic?
Meh, I am openminded, but my grandfather was a freemason so I hate people who rail on the freemasons for stupid reasons like what i mentionted above.
OBAMA has been an elected official twice as long as H. ClintoN....he was an Illinois State Senator from 1996-2004, then a US Senator from 2004-2008.
Clinton's first elected office was in 2000, when she moved to New York just to run for senate. Im sorry but being the presidents wife does not equal experience. Especially when he was having affair after affair. Clearly she cant even make her husband happy let alone an entire country.
OBAMA 08
I'm a huge Obama supporter, but making fun of Hillary for Bill's indiscretions shouldn't be a part of the discussion for why she shouldn't be president.
What you said was all true-- she did move to New York just to run for the Senate, and Obama has held elective office for longer than Clinton has.
Go Obama!
"No one knew who Obama was 6 months ago"
Speak for yourself, buddy. The first time me and my friends saw him was in 2004 giving his famous speech at the convention. Our debate coach made us stop practicing so that we could listen. I was 16 at the time, and I've been following along his career ever since.
He has called for the recruitment of another 65,000 soldiers for the Army as well as 27,000 more Marines.
This makes sense, since the Army and the Marines have taken the brunt of the casualties in Iraq and afghanistan. Our military is being stretched too thin, so much so that we would be vulnerable if we needed our troops here at home if we were attacked. A consequence of an overstretched military is how our soldiers have to serve 4-5 tours of duty with only a few months in between each deployment. Our soldiers deserve better.
Sure he wants to "end" the war in Iraq, but still defend "US interests". Wow. Enough said.
What? You would rather we not defend US interests?! Obama's stance on protecting US interests doesn't mean starting preventative wars, nor pre-emptive wars. Painting Obama as a war hawk isn't accurate. Being distantly related to Dick Cheney doesn't make him a war hawk etiher. It goes without saying that the other candidates would protect US interests as well.
Speak for yourself, buddy. The first time me and my friends saw him was in 2004 giving his famous speech at the convention. Our debate coach made us stop practicing so that we could listen. I was 16 at the time, and I've been following along his career ever since.
I don't know if you know this but every American doesn't have a debate coach like you.
This makes sense, since the Army and the Marines have taken the brunt of the casualties in Iraq and afghanistan. Our military is being stretched too thin, so much so that we would be vulnerable if we needed our troops here at home if we were attacked. A consequence of an overstretched military is how our soldiers have to serve 4-5 tours of duty with only a few months in between each deployment. Our soldiers deserve better.
What you're saying is that because the Army and the Marines have taken the 'brunt of the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan' we need to send more troops to get killed. Clearly, that makes sense. You're saying our soldiers deserve better... They deserve to fight a war worth fighting.
What? You would rather we not defend US interests?! Obama's stance on protecting US interests doesn't mean starting preventative wars, nor pre-emptive wars. Painting Obama as a war hawk isn't accurate. Being distantly related to Dick Cheney doesn't make him a war hawk etiher. It goes without saying that the other candidates would protect US interests as well.
Defending interests is a fancy name for defending things that AREN'T ours. Who are we to say what we can defend. Obamas stance on protecting US is just another stance that Bush had lol. You get carried away with their terminology, don't be fooled by a silly euphemism. We don't own the world "buddy". Did your debate coach teach you that?
+mspin
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
brother.
The point is that he's been on the scene for longer than 6 months. And those who have been paying attention can attest to that. For instance, back in 2006, Obama was on the cover of Newsweek... he's been on the radar for much longer. I'm not saying you're supposed to know that, but those who have been paying attention (like following the news on a daily basis) don't think Obama has come out of nowhere. All I'm trying to say is, just because you haven't heard of Obama before six months ago, it may be because you haven't been as engaged. There are many adults who remember him from 2004, but those that are younger than me (I'm 20) most likely don't. You're right, if it wasn't for my coach, I probably wouldn't have heard of the guy until I read that Newsweek magazine in '06.
I'm not pro-war-- and I'm for getting out of Iraq as soon as possible. But you have to understand the toll that this war has taken on military, whether you were for or against this war. And from the mistakes that Bush has made, there is no doubt that we're going to need to reinforce our military. It doesn't have to be so that we can go fight more preventative wars, but in the name of national security. I would like to see our troops home-- but increasing the size of the military isn't an overture for more war. But I do agree that I troops deserve to fight a war that's worth fighting for, and it wasn't Iraq.
National interests can mean any number of things-- please don't assume that everyone is naive for not seeing national interests as you do. For you, national interests may be a negative word. I attribute national interest to doing things that make sure nuclear war doesn't break out in a part of the world, alleviating the affects of climate change--things of that nature. The protection of national interests doesn't always mean going to war, but solving collective problems through cooperation. So I guess, I accept the neo-liberal institutionalist definition of national interests.
No shit, we don't own the world (if you've ever read any of my blog, you'd know that I agree). But you'd be remiss if you didn't understand that the US is a hegemon, and parts of the world depend on the stability the US brings to the international system. I'm not saying the US has made decisions that promote stability, but having a strong hegemon (according to Kenneth Waltz) is critical to maintaining stability.
And please refrain from using personal attacks-- this is a friendly discussion. You don't need to prove your point by mocking the fact that I had a debate coach.
Since when was calling someone 'buddy' in a debate a valid argument? Please refrain from mocking me, by calling me 'buddy'. I am not your 'buddy' nor do I ever want to be. I really love how the ProU staff is able to mock people and go against the terms of service. This is the third time this has happened. What happens to the staff that commits such acts? Nothing. They probably delete the flagged comment so no one else sees it.
First of all, where did I say he was on the scene for 6 months? Can you please show me a quote? :) The point I was making was that the overall population of America hadn't heard of Obama until recently. I'm sorry to say but not everyone holds the candidacy so dearly to their heart as you. The bulk of adults didn't know Obama before 6 months. And as exactly like you said you had no idea what Obama was about even after hearing the name. Even if the wonderful 'adults' that you spoke of did know who Obama was they probably don't even know what he's about AND probably THEY STILL DON'T. This still hits the same effect with not knowing who he was at all. I don't understand how you can disagree with this statement. Go onto your campus and ask if they heard of Obama 6 months ago and if the answer is yes ask them what does he stand for. Even if you put a name to a face, out of no where came his radical ideas that clearly don't correspond with his rich buddies ideas.
Sure you're so-called "neo-liberal" institutionalist propaganda definition of national interests would be all fine and dandy but there are major flaws in what you're saying. Making sure nuclear war doesn't break out is not A US ISSUE, it is a WORLD issue. We shouldn't be the ones to make decisions on a world issue. Also, when was the last nuclear attack? Who was that by? Now, you're going to tell me that the US should spear head these global issues when we can't even chose the right president. Let alone know what a candidate is running for other than 'change'. What you're saying is blasphemous. Tell me how to 'make sure' a nuclear war doesn't break out without causing strife which drives nations to push for war. While your doing that, tell me how exactly we 'make sure' anyway. I would really like to know how we can truly verify that there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons in a nation. Yet, it's been proven that you can ship nuclear weapons INTO THIS COUNTRY. Can you explain that? We need to worry about ourselves before our national interests that just demean other countries with our arrogant ideals.
I didn't know I was supposed to read your blog? I mean, you're the one that commented mine, not the other way around. I thought the way it works is that someone posts a blog, the READER READS it (crazy idea, i know) and responds. But you'd be remiss if you didn't understand that we live on a planet, and due to a number of issues, each country has grown inter-dependent of each other. Each country needs each other for stability. The only so-called 'countries that rely on us' you speak of that rely on us are the countries that we own. The statement by Kennith Waltz proves to be true due to the fact we already own the countries that rely on us for 'stability'
Also, please refrain from swearing. I don't think that helps the friendly environment that you are promoting, it can even project ignorance.
+mspin
The time for Obama opponents bleating the same "What is OBAMA really for?" has past, and now it is to the point where those opponents are beating a dead horse over and over and over.
That Youtube video is creatively made to make people who vote for Obama seem like they don't know what he is about, because unfortunately for Obama opponents, Obama concentrates his policies more on the intangible domestic affairs and not with clear cut issues like "WAR" and "TERRORISM" and things of that nature.
The main bulwark of Obama's policies are for domestic healthcare, while McCain's is more foerign. Hell, even Hillary is using populated issues like the war to further her campaign. But Obama, thank Gad, is moving a little farther from that hot mess with his focus on domestic issues.
WHat I am trying to prove is that videos like your posted one are crafted to make it seem like obama lacks any strong political views.
How about you post some videos of intelligent people giving a COMPLETE interview instead of chopped up, cinematic ones.
Here, I'll help (make sure you wacth the whole thing):
If using the phrase, "speak for yourself, buddy" personally offended you, I apologize.
I am not your 'buddy' nor do I ever want to be.
Great. I wasn't looking to make friends with you by posting on your blog.
I really love how the ProU staff is able to mock people and go against the terms of service.
Like I said, if you think I was mocking you, rather than answering your arguments, I apologize, but I think you know that's not my intention. I'm pretty sure calling someone buddy doesn't violate the ToS.
First of all, where did I say he was on the scene for 6 months? Can you please show me a quote? :)
Sure. Let's be serious 6 months ago, no one knew who Obama was.
I understand your point wasn't literal, but I was pointing out that he's been on the radar for people a lot longer than "recently." You may think that the general populace didn't know he even existed until he ran for president, but I was showing you an example of how you can't just assume that.
I'm sorry to say but not everyone holds the candidacy so dearly to their heart as you.
Actually, I don't care that everyone doesn't like him. Differences of opinion are perfectly fine with me, and I welcome it. While I can't make everyone like him, I know that I can do what I can to make sure that people don't base their opinion off of inaccurate information.
And as exactly like you said you had no idea what Obama was about even after hearing the name.
I don't think I've ever said that.
Even if the wonderful 'adults' that you spoke of did know who Obama was they probably don't even know what he's about AND probably THEY STILL DON'T. This still hits the same effect with not knowing who he was at all.
You're getting at a big problem in this country-- that lots of people base their choices on the personality of the candidates, rather than their policies. And this phenomenon that you describe, of people not being able to know what Obama is all about: this isn't peculiar to Senator Obama. I'm sure you could find equal numbers of people who support the other candidates, and still couldn't tell you what the platforms are of their particular candidate. I don't agree with this; I think people SHOULD become more engaged and learn more about the policies their candidate supports.
Go onto your campus and ask if they heard of Obama 6 months ago and if the answer is yes ask them what does he stand for.
My campus doesn't really give a good estimation of the population. The people here are generally very active and politically aware. In any case, just because people don't know what Obama stands for, does it mean that they're not paying attention, or does it mean that the candidate doesn't stand for anything? I think it's the former. You don't have to search very far to know what his policy proposals are. I think that video said more about those people rather than Obama.
Sure you're so-called "neo-liberal" institutionalist propaganda definition of national interests would be all fine and dandy but there are major flaws in what you're saying.
Neo-liberal institutionalism shouldn't be put into quotation marks-- it's a formal theory of International Relations. And since this is in all of my International Relations textbooks, I very much doubt that's propaganda (i'm not sure what you mean by saying that the neo-liberal institutionalist definition of national interest is propaganda).
Making sure nuclear war doesn't break out is not A US ISSUE, it is a WORLD issue. We shouldn't be the ones to make decisions on a world issue.
That's what neo-liberal institutionalism is: that THE national interest depends on cooperation with the world community. I agree with what you're saying. But neo-liberal institutionalists believe that THE national interest IS cooperation (US issues are important to the world, and worldly issues are important to the US, too).
Now, you're going to tell me that the US should spear head these global issues when we can't even chose the right president.
I'm not making a judgment as to whether tthe US should lead, but I'm saying that the US needs to participate in order for any global issues to be resolved.
Tell me how to 'make sure' a nuclear war doesn't break out without causing strife which drives nations to push for war. While your doing that, tell me how exactly we 'make sure' anyway. I would really like to know how we can truly verify that there wouldn't be any nuclear weapons in a nation.
Well, I would try and prevent the causes that would lead to nuclear war in the first place. How could we do that? Encourage both sides to negotiate and communicate. In the case of India and Pakistan, it is in both country's interests to cooperate, since nuclear war would result in MAD (mutally assured destruction). How do we make sure? The international community has to band together to come up with the solutions. How do we verify that there aren't nuclear weapons? Intelligence. Not just our own, but other country's intelligence as well.
We need to worry about ourselves before our national interests that just demean other countries with our arrogant ideals.
Worrying about ourselves is exactly what protecting national interests mean. And I agree that we don't need to involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries. Therefore, I think it is in the country's national interets to not involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries.
I didn't know I was supposed to read your blog? I mean, you're the one that commented mine, not the other way around. I thought the way it works is that someone posts a blog, the READER READS it (crazy idea, i know) and responds.
I don't think I said you were supposed to read it. I just suggested that I've written blogs criticising America's involvement in other parts of the world, and that it shows that I agree with you on that point.
But you'd be remiss if you didn't understand that we live on a planet, and due to a number of issues, each country has grown inter-dependent of each other. Each country needs each other for stability.
Since I believe in the theory of Neo-liberal institutionalism, I agree that the world is interdependent. But there still are places where the US can 'go it alone' (not that I think it should), which shows that the US is still a hegemon, and we live in a unipolar world.
The only so-called 'countries that rely on us' you speak of that rely on us are the countries that we own. The statement by Kennith Waltz proves to be true due to the fact we already own the countries that rely on us for 'stability'.
The fact that we can make puppets out of other countries also shows that the US is still a hegemon. And I agree, the countries that we heavily influence rely on us. But it can be useful, for example, to tell Pakistan not to go to war with India, or the other way around.
Also, please refrain from swearing. I don't think that helps the friendly environment that you are promoting, it can even project ignorance
Swearing at you would be different from swearing somewhere in my comment. But you did swear in your post, so maybe pot calling the kettle...?
For the record, those flags have not been deleted. They are still awaiting attention. We're simply trying to find a system for dealing with flags against faculty members that works. Additionally, it would help if you would flag the comment that contains the actual ToS violation as the one you flagged here did not.
-----
~Fallon~
“What is insanity, anyway? Is it when you scream and everyone else whispers, or is it when you fight for what's right, even when everyone else thinks your wrong?” Ethergoth
-----
I'm glad there are people in this country who are doing their research on the candidates, and are willing to put their opinions and concerns out for others to discuss. I, too, remember Barack Obama coming on the scene back in 2004, but I am 33, and try to pay attention to what's going on in the world. Plus I watch Oprah. haha.
There are lots of political figures who come on the scene seemingly out of nowhere. I was your age when Bill Clinton was running for president, and I, too, had never heard of him. As a high school senior in L.A., what did I know about the governor of Arkansas or any other state in the nation? Before the 2004 race, I had never heard of John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, or even George H.W. Bush before the 2000 race. Most people don't know very much about their own governors, representatives, and senators even at the state level, much less those from other states. So his newness should not in and of itself raise suspicion.
I do share your concern about the war, however. The one thing we can say about Obama is that he did not vote to go to Iraq.
I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus. Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Unfortunately, he's not committed to complete withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Freemasons are a social group that perform civil services in and around the community. It consists of people mainly from Judeo-Christian backgrounds, and follow morals modeled after such religious principles, but there are many Muslim Freemasons as well. Any Freemason temple in a larger city will have a copy of the Koran, Bible, and Tanach on their altar - I don't know about divisions in smaller cities, especially in the Bible belt. Freemasons have been around for a very long time and every single president (besides JFK) have been Freemasons, as far as I know. Somebody belonging to the Freemasons, of which proof of Obama being a member is dubious, is in no way a justification that they have some secret ulterior motives behind their run for presidency.
I think the only reason people have such paranoia over the Freemasons is because they are a secret society, and because they don't disclose every fact about what they do behind closed doors people become suspicious. I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that many Freemasons are somewhat wealthier than the rest of a given population and many are involved in politics. Combine wealth and power with secret society and you have the beginnings of a good mystery novel. Does it mean that any of those conspiracy theories are true? I myself find it very doubtful.
Furthermore, just because someone may or may not be distantly related to another person does not predict how that person will behave or what their public policies will be.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
will say that Freemasons are the most ceremony minded and usually some of the most controversial control freaks on Earth.
I've no doubt that Freemason funerals involve a lot of ceremony, and my boyfriend being a Funeral Director has said just as much. However, on the point of Freemasons being "some of the most controversial control freaks on Earth" that is merely opinion based on your experiences. I highly doubt that it is a true statement in every Funeral Director's experience on Earth.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
I admit that on Earth is exaggeration.