iGoPolitics.com

One of the hot debates that will be occurring during the upcoming presidential election is the issue of illegal immigration. This has been a long struggle in Congress over the past few years and continues to be an issue of contention. Deciphering where some of the candidates stand might appear to be difficult at first, as Obama in particular tries to avoid answering certain questions. However, his voting record truly speaks for itself.

Obama has undoubtedly thrown himself behind the illegal immigrants, perhaps hoping to generously give them a "chance at a better life." He has voted for allowing them to have social security numbers and collect benefits. He has voted for the support of chain migration, providing citizenship for illegal immigrants after ten years. He voted to filibuster the border fence. He voted to provide illegal immigrants with amnesty. He supports allowing illegal immigrants to have a driver's license. He also wants to provide them with welfare. When asked if the United States would deport 12 million illegal aliens, he all but laughed, declaring such action "impossible."

When it comes to the issue of sanctuary cities, Obama has stayed particularly mum. Refusing to directly answer whether or not he supports the existence of these cities, and instead repeating how he would impose a wide spread reform. However, you only have to take a look at his past voting record to see where his heart lies on this issue. A betting man might say that Obama would certainly throw his weight behind the sanctuary cities.

The United States has long been the fall guy for the United Nations. In fact, the UN is always quick to point fingers at the United States and demand things of the country that gives them their funding. When the torture scandal broke out regarding the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Prison, the UN began shouting at the top of its lungs that the United States must come forth and report to them about their actions. They demanded that the prison be shut down. There was a lot of chatter from a group that seems to have forgotten its own past.

It wasn't that long ago when the United Nations was informed that its own Peace Keepers, sent to restore order and hope to African Nation of Congo, had been brutally mistreating the people of the nation. In fact, the abuse was targeted at innocent women and children who were subjected to vicious sexual assaults, among other abuses. There were hundreds of reports of young Congolese girls who were left with babies fathered by UN representatives, who simply abandoned them when their time of service was over. These men went home facing no repercussions for their actions. Congo, who has struggled economically after fighting a seemingly never ending civil war has been forced to rely on these so-called "peacekeepers" to survive.

How quickly one forgets. And while America may need to address what occurred at the Guantanamo Prison, it is a clear example of the double-standard that the United Nations holds over the United States in a effort to exert more control.

There are those that question the effectiveness and the current purpose of the United Nations, and with good reason. While the various Councils meet and hand out mandates to various countries, it seems that their influence doesn't go very far. Take, for example, the situation with Iran, which has been building for a number of years.

The United Nations has issued several decrees that the nation of Iran must halt its production of uranium enrichment immediately. While the Middle Eastern country has said that its uranium is for use in providing a power supply for its nation, many fear that Iran is actually building nuclear weapons which it intends to aim at Israel or at the United States. And while the United Nations has sent out cries for Iran to stop, the current dictator has all but laughed in their faces and announced that not only will he not cease production, he has plans to increase it.

So who, exactly, is the United Nations governing? Is it providing global safety by getting nations to work together towards the common good? Is it keeping dangerous dictators at bay? Or is it a group of politicians gathered together, pounding their fists on the table, and growing hoarse from repeating themselves while no one is listening? It seems that the United Nations can only control those that allow themselves to be controlled and that keeping another World War from breaking out may be harder than they thought. Whether the UN will be able to return themselves to their original purpose remains to be seen.

The United Nations was formed in the interest of preserving world peace and keeping the horrors of what happened during the World Wars from ever taking place again. Some might argue that it hasn't been particularly successful in averting tragedy and that the United Nations is currently more interested in policing countries in an attempt to force them to fall in line with a specific viewpoint. In fact, there seems to be a growing argument for the United States to completely pull out of the United Nations entirely.

The United States pays the highest amount of dues to the United Nations. We are responsible for a large portion of the operating budget of the organization. But while we have been shelling out large portions of cash to the United Nations there are those that continue to be concerned about the agenda being pushed at the UN and fear that what is at stake might be our national sovereignty. Even eight years ago there were over 300,000 signed petitions circulated around Congress asking that the United States pull out of the United Nations.

There have been reports of proposals in the United Nations to dispel veto power, to allow rapid response troops to be assembled, and to establish an International Criminal Court. These steps would place the United Nations in a position to establish a world government down the line, some feel. There has been growing concern over the United States losing control over its own soldiers and borders, so that a Republican sponsored bill in 2000 worked to keep US soldiers from wearing UN uniforms, insignias, or serving under UN command.

With the several fiascoes that have occurred over the past few years with the Bush administration involving cover ups of arguably illegal government actions, a trait Americans should be looking for in their next presidential candidate is trustworthiness.

Senator Barack Obama is most likely the Democratic nominee for the 2008 November elections, but as his popularity grows with the American public, it is troubling to see that behind his fine speeches and charming smile, Obama is not entirely trustworthy.

First of all, Obama has the least amount of experience as a leader of the people than any of the other candidates. He has only been a senator for Illinois for three years, and during that time, Obama has missed over 220 votes during the current congress. That is a 40.3 percent rate of absentia, which makes his rate of voting the worst of all the democrats in the Senate. Can America really trust a man who apparently does not take his senatorial job seriously enough to represent the people of Illinois adequately?

Second, Barack has been associated closely for over 20 years with the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the infamous pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ based in Chicago who preaches nothing but racism, hatred and anti-American sentiments. Even if Obama’s claims of having detached himself from his preacher and mentor recently are true, which is doubtful, it is disturbing that he only did so once the public outcry reached his politically-minded ears.

How can the American public trust a man to lead this country who has been a devoted follower of a leader who preaches against American patriotism?

iGoPolitics.com

Will Obama Look To Provide Sanctuary?

Does The United Nations Play Fair?

Is The United Nations Lost?

People Press The United States To Consider A Pull-Out From UN

Is Obama Trustworthy?