Eco-Terrorism Part Three: Where Obama Stands

In a 2005 hearing on eco-terrorism, Senator Barack Obama stated:

“In America, we have the right to disagree over personal beliefs – whether they are religious, philosophical or moral – and to express those beliefs peaceably. We have the right to assemble and to demonstrate. But, we do not have the right to destroy others’ property and to commit acts of violence in the name of free speech.”

Obama supports our right to legally exercise free speech in the name of any cause.

“I hope we are not headed down the path of infringing on the ability of legitimate advocacy organizations to express their opinions and to raise funds in order to do so. I do not want Americans to equate groups that advocate violence with mainstream environmental organizations.”

Obama understands that not all animal rights (or environmental) activists seek to commit crimes or other disrespectful acts, and wants this fact to be recognized by legislators and law enforcers.

“So, while I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Committee’s time would be better spent learning why EPA has not promulgated regulations to deal with lead paint in remodeled homes. Such an oversight hearing could have a significant impact on improving the lives of children all over the country.”

All I have to say is, way to go Barack!

And from his inaugural address:

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Once again, I’m going to have to disagree with Green is the New Red. Will pessimistically blogged that he doesn’t think Obama will confront any of these eco-terrorism issues and that those who are looking to Obama as a “savior” are overly hopeful and will be greatly disappointed. (Forgive me, I closed the page and can’t seem to re-discover this particular blog entry). I won’t say I’m worshipping the man, but I have great confidence in his power and determination to facilitate change (and to right all the wrongs that occurred during the Bush administration). Just as the magazine cover above suggests, I truly do look to Obama as “A New Hope.”

Photo courtesy of Rolling Stone.

1 Comment »

  1. Only the future will tell if the green is the new red blog was right on Obama.

    I do have hope that he will be more animal friendly then Bush (which isn’t very difficult off course). Just read this:

    http://whatdoiknow.typepad.com/what_do_i_know/2008/01/obama-on-animal.html

    Obama is quoted as saying:

    “Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, “not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog.” He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.”

    I’m very glad he got elected. Just imagine the insanity if Sarah Palin would be vice president.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment