I am Voting for Obama, but here's some thoughts on why there is still plenty of reason for pause.

A friend, artist, musician and respected member of the communiyt sent me this, and I thought it was worth sharing. Despite it's title, which is the author's, not mine, I am voting for Obama.

I post this as a reminder that if he wins, the work for truth and justice will be FAR from over, and the left can not be mulled to sleep that now everything will be OK because the Bush-Cheny gangsters have left the White House. There are much larger forces at work to be over come to save our asses from wide spread calamity.

Written by Chris Sia:

WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
–Thomas Jefferson

As we head into the home stretch of Election Day, I remember what the late great Bill Hicks had to say of American politics. He compared it to one puppeteer with puppets on both hands. And, essentially, this is true. The same forces control the nominations of the two parties, who work for the same man. Either we get the stern, patriarchal, protective Republican puppet or we get the kinder, gentler, matriarchal Democratic puppet. Whatever puppet ends up in the White House, it has already been groomed and spoonfed the agenda of the plutocracy–the ruling elite. The absurdity of the system has become surreal, in the face of what is purported to be democracy. The public is lied to on a daily basis, in the headlines of the newspapers, on the television, from the smiling plasticized faces of the anchorpersons. Proffered are myriad reasons to be afraid: religious extremists, Islamic terrorists, a crashing economy, global warming, text-messaging train drivers, crack-addicted carjackers, killer bees. More reasons to have Big Brother looking out for you, protecting you from yourself, and the xenophobic culture we have become. It's a system where a woman like Sarah Palin has a good shot at becoming the next president of the United States. It's a system where we ridicule other nations for human rights abuses and yet we legalize our own form of torture. We sing of the land of the free and the home of the brave, yet we are legislating our freedoms away, the very ones the Founding Fathers fought hard for, the rights given to U.S. citizens by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that those serving this nation are sworn into office to protect, and yet slowly and incrementally we have been giving them up in the name of security. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.

When I speak to people about the election, and ask them about their choices, the phrase I hear over and over again, is "Well…it's the lesser of two evils." Evil is still evil. And looking at current events, current crises, my question is: do we have time to support evil? We're in a geo-political, economic, environmental, socio-spiritual quagmire: Iraq, Afghanistan, the looming potential conflicts with Iran, North Korea, Russia, the promise of "war without end," etc.; ecological degradation on all levels, from the micro to the macro; the economic meltdown that we're witnessing while the robber barons continue to loot the nation. It's going to take more than a new president to confront these issues, much less one that actually wants to address these issues, rather than facilitate them. I don't have much faith in the electoral system. Just looking back at the last two presidential elections, we have mountains of evidence regarding voter fraud and tampering. There is much written and reported that most major federal elections have been corrupted since 1972. I believe that voting for either the Democratic or Republican party is a wasted vote, and a concession to the two-party system. And I would argue if two parties really exist. It's a grand theater, an exotic fanfare–especially this year–we have black candidates, we have women candidates. Golly! We do live in a democracy! A bit of scrutiny reveals the sponsorship of the machine.

A vote for a third-party candidate that truly represents your ideals and values, represents a voice that eventually has to be reckoned with. The more votes they receive, the more their voices are heard. And I think that we must focus on local elections, where we still have the vestiges of representation. Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who once camped outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford¬–is giving Nancy Pelosi a run for her seat in the House. Pelosi's approval rating has dropped considerably–32% of San Franciscans approve of her job, while 39% disapprove. If there was any election to rally around, to coalesce liberal/progressive forces in San Francisco, this is the one. I fantasize about the Hollywood liberals and the San Francisco progressives truly uniting behind this race, donating a gazillion dollars, sexing up her campaign and ousting the warmongering, corporate whore out of San Francisco.

As I started writing this article, I discovered there is so much information, and what I report here is based upon two weeks of research, on our last bastion of free press, the Internet. I ask you not to trust me, but to do your own homework and find out for yourself. There are some pieces of evidence that are right there in front of our faces, and some that are buried… The issue that I fear the most about Obama becoming the next president is that I believe he represents a false sense of liberalism. I am elated that he has charged up so many people, especially young people to become involved in this election, and in politics; however, it is a complex subject, and to peer behind the curtain of how this machine works takes some time and energy. If I can ask you to consider one thing, and then go on reading the rest of this writing, ask yourself, "Do you believe that whoever takes the Democratic nomination is unfettered by corporate money?" The ruling elite–and I use this term frequently to describe the powers that govern and exploit the planet, not just multinational corporations, but the complex web of those entities, particularly the military-industrial-prison complex, big energy, and their thinktanks, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Project for a New American Century, the Council of Foreign Relations¬–puts these people in power. Don't think for a minute that these power-usurping plutocrats would relinquish the throne. Ask yourself if you support the anti-war movement, if you would allow your candidate to teach your children foreign policy. If you support civil liberties, would you allow your candidate to teach civics to your children. As Dennis Kucinich pointed out early in this campaign, you cannot say you are against the war in Iraq, and then continue to vote to fund it. Look at the voting records of these people. Have they voted for the $300 billion of war appropriations?

Senator Obama is not anti-war as he is leading people to believe. Like most of the Democratic Party, he is a ardent supporter of the invasion, bombing and occupation of Afghanistan. He supported the Lebanon war, which included a civilian massacre and the destruction of their infrastructure with tens of thousands of U.S.-shipped cluster bombs. He supports the Israeli occupation of Palestine, endorsing the besiegement of Gaza. Yes, he voiced his opposition to the war on Iraq–at a time when it was politically safe–but since becoming a U.S. Senator, he has voted for 300 billion dollars in war appropriations. He also puts the responsibility of resolving the conflict in Iraq on the Iraqi people, absolving the U.S. of its culpability of the illegal war and occupation. His view of ending the war rests on mitigating the U.S.'s financial and militaristic constraints, ignoring reparations and a sustainable future for the Iraqi people. His stance on bombing Pakistan, a nation three times larger than Iraq and with nuclear capabilities, has been remarkably more aggressive. Along the campaign trail he stated, "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." And also another fearmongering reference to September 11, and another diversion to holding the real terrorists responsible. If the U.S. was going to bomb the country where the alleged terrorists hail from, it would be Saudi Arabia. And just the other night, during the debate, referring to Iran, he threatened that unless behaviors changed, there would be "dire consequences. Military option is not off the table.

One only has to look at the people surrounding Obama. His choice for running mate, Joe Biden, is the Chairman of the Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee. He was one of the most important senators in banging the war drums for the Iraq. He has voted for every dollar of Iraqi war appropriations. Perhaps the greatest insight into Obama's foreign policy is to look at his advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski has had his hands in U.S. foreign policy since the Carter Administration. He co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, and served as its director from 1973-76. In 1985, under the Reagan administration, Brzezinski served as a member of the President's Chemical Warfare Commission. From 1987 to 1988, he worked on the NSC–Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy. From 1987 to 1989 he also served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In 1988, Brzezinski was co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force and endorsed Bush for president, breaking with the Democratic party. In his book, The Grand Chessboard, he urges the U.S. to overtake control in the Middle East to ensure American global primacy. Brzezinski taught at Columbia University when Obama transferred there from the Occidental College in California, and it is speculated that this is when Brzezinski recruited Obama.

Lastly, on Obama's hawkish foreign policy stance, let's examine his voting record for 2005-06:

"1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2"

"2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General)."

"2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of waterboard torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10."

"4/21/05: Obama voted to make John 'Death Squad' Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107"

"4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 "

"7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed 'The Nuclear Bill' by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 ."

"9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees."

"10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 ."

"11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. ."

"12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. "

"5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 ."

"5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 ."

"6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 ."

"6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 ."

"6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 "

"6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 "

"6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183."

"6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .

9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 "

"9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 ."

"11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 ."

"12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 "

"Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…"

–from the Creative Youth News Team (CYNT 2007), a progressive African American advocacy organization.

Barack Obama does not support an independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11. In the seven years since the attacks, the movement known as 9-11 Truth has galvanized. The plethora of evidence and disturbing unanswered questions–surrounding not only the day of the attack, but also the history and aftermath–invokes a sobering and stalwart look into the complicity of the highest echelon of the United States Government. Without entertaining theories of what actually happened that day, and merely looking at the government's response and their boldfaced lies, it is clear that there is more than just incompetence and intelligence blunders that resulted in a complete failure of military response. The issues raised by the 9-11 Truth Movement can no longer be dismissed as loony conspiracy theorists. Many scholars, scientists, former U.S. government & military officials, as well as current and former international government officials support an independent investigation of Sept 11. See http://patriotsquestion911.com/. Other 2008 presidential candidates that support an independent investigation include Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and current Green Party hopeful Cynthia McKinney. If the forces behind the attacks of September 11 were held accountable, it could serve as the catalyst in loosening the stranglehold of the kleptocracy and facilitating an overhaul of American government.

Barack Obama has also supported legislation that has further eroded the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He recently voted for the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] legislation, the bill that gave the executive office the ability to intercept all international communications without warrants, violating the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. It also granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications giants embroiled in multimillion law suits for turning over information illegally to the Bush Administration. This was a bill he had promised to filibuster last year.

Barack Obama has also stated that he will support the "Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism" bill. This legislation flew through the House with a 404-6 vote, and is now in the Senate, referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Obama serves. This bill's vague language leaves open a wide interpretation of what "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism" are comprised of. Proponents of the bill argue that it will be used to root out Islamic terrorists within the borders of this country. A closer look at the support of this bill reveals the work of the Rand Corporation, a government affiliated thinktank, the very same one that brought us the Viet Nam war at all costs. People from the Rand Corporation testified before Congress, and the sponsor of the bill, Jane Harmon, has enjoyed a lengthy relationship with Rand. In 2005, Rand published a report entitled "Trends in Terrorism," which included a chapter called "Homegrown Terrorism Threats." There is nothing in this chapter about political Islamics, rather it includes anti-globalization movements from both the right and the left, animal rights activists, environmental activists, anarchists, etc. It also specifically targets the Internet as a target to be highly scrutinized and investigated, attacking the First Amendment right to free speech. The frightening aspect of this is the criminalization of free speech and ideologies, that American citizens who have a very strong opinion that is contrary to the Administration, could be deemed an "enemy combatant" and held at a facility like Guantanamo Bay.

With this voting record, and looking at the people who have put him in place, who stand beside him, the slogans of "change," become empty rhetoric. I'm not swooned by the fawning media or charismatic speeches. I am not impressed by someone who represents himself to be against the war but then continues to fund every last dollar, the dollars that go to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater USA. This country is under attack, not from Islamic terrorists, but from the complex web of plutocratic corporate interests, dominated by the mega-wealthy, who are looting the coffers and packing their wallets with blood money. Who do you think is receiving the $750 billion bailout? Who received $85 billion the other day? The only change we will see when Obama or McCain take office [and I predict it will be Obama with the Brzezinski cabal in full force] will be the smirking loveable idiot deathmask of Bush removed from the Oval Office and the kind, transracial, messianic mask of false liberalism enthroned behind the White House. Other than that, I fear it's full steam ahead for the Armageddonists, the Robber Barons, the Carlyle Groups, the Halliburtons, the Amerada Hess, the Lockheed Martins, the Project for a New American Century, the Christian Fundamentalists. As the chasm between the haves and have nots widens, and gas prices soar, along with everything else that is transported by the wizening arteries of crude oil, then will change happen? When dissent becomes illegal? And the National Guard is outsourced to foreigners who are quelling the protests of the people demanding clean water and affordable food, or even their Constitutional rights. What about the 2 trillion dollars that the Pentagon lost right before September 11? Who is bailing the Department of Defense out? When we find out, will change happen then? Or when we find out who really took down the World Trade Center, will change occur then? And now the House of Representatives being threatened with martial law if the bailout bill wasn't passed… And troops being deployed from Iraq to the U.S. to augment FEMA and federal law enforcement in the imposition of traffic controls, crowd control, curfews, enhanced border and port security, and neighborhood patrols in the event a national emergency being declared. Then will change come? Perhaps… I'm optimistic, but change will only happen when the people want it, and it's not falsely promised by a well-groomed politician dangling on the pursestrings of the ruling elite.