Current campaign commentary has degenerated to cliches... the only question seems to be, will Denver's Superdelegates in August plump for BHO (aka "the Banana") or the egregious MzBill, wife of the First Black President so characterized because prosecuting violations of his Presidential Oath amounted to "lynch law."
Since LBJ in 1964, no D-rat presidential candidate has ever won the national "white vote." Over decades, blacks voting 90%+ en bloc have become D-rats' indispensable core constituency. The Obama Phenomenon was thus inevitable, however long-delayed.
In 2008, however, the Banana's problem is not race but character and personality: A Statist demagogue espousing typically vile anti-Semitism, an exclusionary group-identity, rancid entitlement snobbery the more outrageous for being entirely unearned. A feckless, rootless Leftard, the Banana seeks out racist Black Supremacists, certified crooks and terrorists, hate-America types of all stripes foreign and domestic. His wife, code-named Michelle, is only the most vocal.
D-rats nominated the first Catholic (Al Smith, in 1928); the first female VP (Geraldine Ferraro/Zacaro in 1984-- she preferred her maiden name [sic] to that of her notorious Mafioso spouse)... now comes the first black candidate, so divorced from America's mainstream that Kenya, Indonesia, Muslim cesspools East and West have come to seem like front-porch enclaves in Dubuque.
We hope indeed that MzBill and the Banana will tally losing totals come November 2008. But as Victor David Hansen says, the worry is how their validation of Pastor Putrid's hateful rhetoric will carry on-- does not this guarantee that our next racist demagogue will be "quite white," i.e. that the next Senator Bilbo's crazed rants will seem unassailable because the Banana and his coterie proclaimed them first?
The Civil War is long since ended. The dialectical rebound from 1960s perverse "Black Liberation" is just gearing up. Meantime, benighted Superdelegates must eventually decide: Write off their black vote, probably forever, accepting riots in the streets to go with MzBill's blackmailing extortionists for patronage reasons; or watch whites riot (per "Recreate '68") as their Feminazi favorite shrinks before a Candidate of Color incapable of winning but a single State?
If only McCain would campaign for dogcatcher, opening his convention to Bobby Jindal, Fred Thomson, or any competent Conviction Candidate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You really need to quit being so mealy-mouthed and oblique. It's really hard to tell where you actually stand on these matters.
That's true. It's to tell who Prythroes detests more, the HillyBillies or Sheik Obama. Must be getting low on Koolaide.
Who cares where I stand? We're merely pointing out that in terms of policy and substance, Obama's campaign provides precisely nothing. Like Pelosi's "Energy Independence Plan" of September 2006, we suspect that little is said because there's nothing to say.
Anyone caring to debate on issues should begin with stating suppositions, citing agreed facts, only then posing a rational argument pro or con his theses. Bland phrases, glib cliches, betray mere attitudes, insulting on their face. Our quarrel with press conferences as debates is that they insulate candidates from reality and treat concerned audiences as fools. The fault lies not with partisan constituents, but with obscurantist candidates themselves.
We stand foursquare for Brotherhood, Motherhood-- Institution, Constitution, and Pros-perity. Trust me! Life and Liberty is all you've got to lose.
Post a Comment