A Campaign '08 Personal Farewell Letter to Friends

October 15, 2008.

Dear friends, relatives and voluntary and involuntary “emailers”:
When I was a “USAF-single-and-with-money-in-my-pockets-to-spare-younger-man”, I wanted to change my car for a better looking one. I was faced with the choice between a brand new sports car or a used one in great shape. Of course, the first was more expensive and better looking, but the skillful salesman said new cars came with a "free 27'' TV" offer!

So, who couldn't pass that up? Who? a "USAF-single-and-with-money-in-my-pockets-to-spare-younger-man", that’s who. There was a catch. The TV wouldn't be delivered for about 30 days after buying the car. I fell for it. The TV never came. To make a long story short, two months later I ended trading back for the used car.

I have enjoyed the banter and emails during this campaign. By now those of you who are going to vote for one candidate or the other, no matter what, will not be persuaded one way or the other by the tit-for-tat and mud slinging which is what remains of the campaign until that day when the real poll will take place. So, I will not be responding to any emails of that nature. Given the attempts by Russia to reassert itself again in our hemisphere I've got bigger fish to fry; plus I’m working on the translation of a book on a deadline (By the way, don't sweat too much the Russians; from a military standpoint they are pretty much obsolete. Their real threat is in the triumvirate between them, Venezuela and Iran together with its surrogates Hezbollah in Latin America. Given our insane illegal immigration problem that is where a real threat is today).

Regarding Sen. Obama this is the last thing I have to say. But first see this for yourself, then come and read the rest. Don't cheat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008
Ok, are you back?

This is where Obama confirms the Marxist influence of his intellectual formation. Even though he tries to explain away his "gaffe" (his contemptuous slight on the American working class for "bitterly clinging to their religion and guns" during a private fundraising dinner among San Francisco elite), he confirms a materialist understanding of religion. Basically, he restates what he originally said, about religion not as a foundational human experience but a crutch. And the audience falls for it, including the ignorant interviewers!

Regardless whether or not he is a Marxist, a Muslim or any other charges, I could care less. But Marxism and religion are things I do know both from an intellectual point of view and from practical experience. And it is Obama's intellectual formation which brings out questions. His contemptuous slight on the American working class for "bitterly clinging to their religion and guns" is worth examining by itself. It is a statement worthy of the best Marxists from Lenin to the present. But even more worthy and revealing is the way in which Sen. Obama tried to explain away his comment.

It is clear that for Sen. Obama, as for Marx, religion is the opium of the people. His understanding of religion is materialist (especially pay attention after 2:10 in the meter). In other words, religion is a created structure out of the material conditions of the economic forces, an escape, and a palliative. Notice the end, he says "is what they have left". In other words, religion is not an integral part of the human soul, an agent in history, but a social creation resulting from the material conditions of history. Religion is just "a way to explain their frustrations."

What one clearly sees in his responses, outside the teleprompter, is a mélange of voices which are not entirely his but a product of his formation. I don't think he is an original thinker but a storage of information, doctrine. He shows the syndrome that many of his American university trained contemporaries demonstrate; the lack of an ability to give straight answers for fear of saying something politically incorrect, or of appearing as a modern essentialist.

In his explanation of his comments, in the end, he manages to do what his training has taught him to do; in other words, his reinstates his true beliefs while appearing to be "nuanced" and deep thinking.
Sen. Obama may not be a militant, closet or even conscious Marxist, but that in his intellectual formation there is Marxism there is no doubt about it (see his own autobiography). For Obama religion is the opium of the people. This goes well with the Black Liberation Theology of his Church, which is according to its own statement, not “Christo-centric” but “Afro-centric”.

I do not think that Sen. Obama is the devil incarnate, a closet Muslim, a Manchurian candidate, etc., although objectively, if I had to choose to hire him for my research business or were he to apply for a job at the FBI he wouldn't pass a background check or security clearance. There are two many holes in his story, too many liable personal associations, too many endorsements from America's enemies and two many sealed and unreleased necessary documentation in his trajectory.

His first and most important executive decision was to pick Sen. Biden for VP, supposedly to make up for Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience. But this is Biden’s solution to Iraq: divide the country into three small countries! And Biden has said (9/15/08) that our military is "stretched thin on two wars, one of necessity, one of choice". Any one who can’t see how these two fronts are related to one war knows nothing of foreign policy and geopolitics, or is a demagogue.

This alone is reason enough for me to question my vote for Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama and the Democrats have made a campaign claiming the US presence in Iraq is "illegal," (but one they voted for) yet in his one and only trip to Iraq Obama suddenly remembered that Americans troops are in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. He has privately advised the Iraqi government that Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. In the meantime, the geo-politically ignorant American public keeps buying lines and slogans, like we have an "occupation" in Iraq.

Obama says one thing while campaigning at home, but he already knows the truth about Iraq. Although maybe not with the same number of troops, we are there to stay. Obama knows it. The left wing extremists that won him the primaries know it and are fit to be tied.

Remember the last years of Bush ’41, the president that “got along” with Congress? The economy fell in a slump. Carvell’s devised campaign for Clinton was “It’s the economy, stupid”. Bush’s ’41 campaign responded that the economy eventually would straighten itself up. Within the first two years of the Clinton administration the economy did just that. But the rest of the time we saw terrorism against the US abroad and at home like never before. In fact, during that time 9/11 was in the works, right here at home. It was the Clinton administration which developed and advocated for a policy of regime change in Iraq, defended by all major Democrats and the media. Inclusively, the media covered the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam during all that period, yet once Bush ’43 came to power all that disappeared from the media.

By the way, I was not in favor of going to Iraq (there is public record of that, radio and press). What many of you failed to distinguished was that my criticism was directed to the hypocritical, scandalous and at times even treasonous manner in which those who approved of the policy (Durbin, Kerry, Pelosi, Rangel, Kennedy, Reid) later placed their party political ambitions above the national interest. And of that there is plenty of record too. Credit must be given to Sen. Hillary Clinton who even when waffling, at least stood by her decision and husband’s foreign policy.

In my op/ed in La Voz, “Obama Making Tracks” (Dec. ’07, also in blog, and in La Vanguardia, Spain), I gave Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt, and criticized the Clinton and the old black civil rights establishment for the manner they attacked him. I even sent recommendations to his campaign. I said then, “As long as Obama continues to hang tight to the contradictions [his personal and the party’s contradictions] he won’t win. At least at this moment he doesn’t seem able to overcome those barriers. But he has the opportunity to at least, return the Democratic Party, or a good portion of it, back to its senses. To loosen the party from the grip of the unhinged MoveOn.org, Acorn, and other similar beings alienated from reality, could be one good contribution that his presence in this race may achieve. Ironically, it seems that Obama would have better chances running as a moderate Republican than as a MoveOn.org Democrat.” Apparently he chose to let those teenagers run his campaign.

President Bill Clinton won by appearing as a centrist. Ironically, while Sen. Obama chose to move to the left, it is McCain now who has moved the Democrat vote to the center.

I'm sure that Sen. Obama is a very decent man. He has a lot to contribute to this country once he matures and finds a voice of his own. He is new, fresh and, in the words of his own running mate, "clean" although “not ready to be president” ("The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.", Sen. Biden regarding Sen. Obama during the primaries).

There are many issues on which both candidates and all of us can find common ground for the good of the country. Let’s hope we vote around those issues, not on whether a candidate can or can’t send an email (this was a charge against McCain).

I will not respond to individual emails regarding the campaign. I will only be posting replies through my blog (next one this weekend).

So, vote for whomever you must vote. But if you are going to vote for one candidate because of promises about Iraq, make sure you they are not just offering you a free TV. Iraq is not even an issue anymore.
Farewell.

José A. Amorós

Next page: recommended readings and links"

A great succinct explanation of the mortgage "Wall Street" crisis. Ooops, it was removed from Youtube! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Well, try this one (you might want to stop and read the sources)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaABV1CWXug&feature=related

Saturday Night Live version of the mortgage crisis. There is no better way to explain this crisis. The Sandler’s are real people and major contributors to the Obama campaign. This video was re-edited by NBC because under their picture ran the original caption “People who should be shot”. Soros is a major donor to Obama.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/c-span-bailout/727521/

Try these, especially the last one where a Congressman is upset that the regulator even dares to bring up the warning! Franklyn Raines is doing a great job according to Maxine Waters. Remember these Congress members depend on the goodies of the CRA, both political and financial, for their re-elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

The Community Reinvestment Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

O's Chicago Connections, The Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

'OBAMA THE GREAT' GRATING ON BUBBA http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/news/politics/obama_the_great_grating_on_bubba_131210.htm

Joe Biden against Joe Biden and Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBc8DDpuWo&feature=related

The Barack Obama campaign is getting help from local prosecutors, both Democrats, to "clarify" TV ads the campaign believes are misleading. Censure of freedom of speech.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1