Welcome to "Anonymous," who commented on a post below and is now good enough to say we may have some common ground. Your correspondent sincerely hopes so. My response: Attitudes don't interest me, at 68 years old and a survivor of the Tet Offensive. What politicians say matters only as an indication of what they'll do in office, and that judgment is a question of common sense. This election is not politics as usual. Obama is a threat to everything our nation stands for, and to our way of life.
Whether or not the Democrat candidate is a Muslim, there's no doubt he is a terrorist sympathizer endorsed by every totalitarian thug from Libya to Tehran to William Ayers. Elect him and he will gut America's defenses and open our government to our sworn enemies. Tens of thousands will die within six months; we only hope we and our families are not among them.
There is a reality out there, just as there was in the 1930s when Hitler was coming to power in Germany and Joseph Stalin was murdering Russia's kulaks by the millions. Obama broke U.S. law traveling to Kenya and campaigning for his cousin, Raila Odinga, a rancid Marxist gangster. They are birds of a feather. Odinga virtually makes war on his own people, who are black. Obama can't wait to make war on white Americans. That's not racist hate-mongering, that's just a rational expectation from the plain words of his mentors and spiritual advisors, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Anyone who empowers these fascist thugs will deserve what they get. Facts matter, and their agenda is crystal clear.
Abstraction notions of "fairness" and so on are fine, but there's nothing "fair" about slavery, and Obama wants to turn us all into "wards of the state." No civil rights, no control over our own
lives, no rule of law. He is on record saying the Constitution is flawed because it prescribes "negative freedoms" - what the government can't do to you. But if there's nothing the State can't do, then of course it can do anything. Some may look forward to such vile tyranny, or serfdom, as Hayek said, as an "escape from freedom." But they don't understand what this means. I've lived overseas and have felt the oppression Obama stands for. Once a regime like this takes over, it can last 1,000 years. Let's hope Americans stop it now. The crisis is upon us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I guess I am not so sure that BO being elected, if it even happens (which I don't believe it will), will usher in anything remotely resembling Hitler or Stalin or even J. Wright or L. Farrakhan. FDR was at the helm longer than anybody, and our country did not deteriorate into that extreme form of fascism.
Nor did G.W. Bush and his lot get their endgame in their Project for the New American Century. Presidents don't have that much power. The 2006 installation of a D-rat majority in Congress was a reaction to Bush's lack of execution, leadership, and accountability.
I guess I am just more optimistic and assume that things will swing back towards the right direction again.
It won't be the end of the free world, people will soon realize that B.O. does not piss liquid gold, or whatever it is that they think, and his open-mindedness will if anything make him realize how naive he is (yes I do think that he is extremely self-aware and would be able to recognize this)--and how he will need to depend on those more experienced and world-wise to actually function as President.
As I said, I am optimistic, even if he is elected. Sorry for my original "attitude," I was uncertain what the scope/tone of this blog was.
Anyhow, I am not sure that the link to Ralia Odinga can be established, either, that was all based upon a fax of questionable integrity and origin, and even at that, it was referring to a PAC that has been proven to never have been registered.
After JFK's assassination, a re-elected Lyndon Johnson used his House majority and veto-proof Senate totals to push through so-called Great Society programs.
As FDR-type initiatives, heavy on tax-and-spend collectivist Statism, Johnson's power-grabs effectively destroyed America's single-earner family structure, forcing wives and mothers to work outside the home. Using JFK's executive order authorizing public employee unions --a sop to George Meany's AFL-CIO despite the lessons of Coolidge's Boston Police Strike (1919)-- it wasn't long before femmers, teachers' unions, and other excrescences fastened leach-like on the American body politic, draining all accountability, reducing performance to codas of bureaucratic drivel, promoting identity-based agendas in context of a civil rights movement which itself degenerated to quota-hiring, radically destructive welfare policies etc. loudly espoused by extreme-leftists such as BHO today.
FDR or LBJ, once demagoguery takes hold on institutional levels it proves virtually impossible to correct for or retract. Immigration is the latest example-- regardless of legalities, an open-borders mindset fosters "sanctuary cities" and so forth at odds with overwhelmingly negative public sentiment. But perpetual incumbents in the Congress, safely ensconced for decades, pursue illegals' votes in defiance of all principle, degrading public discourse and resources regardless of concerned constituencies.
We conclude that a BHO plurality in 2008 would effectively end the American Experiment dating from 1788. Intimate associates aside, nothing this nominee does or says evinces any slightest respect for the Founders' limited government, careful strictures enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Quite likely, he is neither native-born nor even a U.S. citizen-- precisely the sort of "stealth candidate" constitutionally excluded from holding public office.
Out of misguided historical guilt, many will grant this slithering racist every doubt. BHO and his genocidal terrorist enablers will target them for liquidation first.
I think we are on the same side but perhaps I am just not an extremist. Again, I am tired of hearing rumors and hearsay about the validity/legality as a candidate, I need more proof, e.g., B.O.'s radio interview from 2000 that I posted the you tube link for in a previous comment...
I think that your ideas are interesting and informative and I definitely get something out of reading here, but your independent voter at the college-educated level isn't going to buy the nonsense about B.O. being a communist or a non-citizen or a racist, if anything, that will encourage them to vote for him, because these are the people that are disgusted by people like Karl Rove, who convinced us that our 2008 candidate's campaign was run by lesbians and that he had an illegitimate son. It's only going to hurt our cause.
And John McCain needed to come out with this redistribution in chief argument back in September. It is a great argument, but it is too late.
I also think that there were other factors at work re: women working out of the home. That is, many of them decided that they wanted to. We can get into this later.
We avoid pejorative ideological labels, however well-deserved, because policies and principles need not be so characterized to matter.
BHO is indisputably a far-left extremist. His well-cloaked persona, anti-Semitic and racist to the core, is quite outside America's mainstream. On national defense, tax policy, socio-cultural questions (infanticide, merit-based education and employment, energy and environmental issues), his radical collectivist/Statist approach is the antithesis of Jefferson's limited government, Hamilton's free-market "capitalist" principles.
Post-LBJ, some women indeed did prefer to "work outside the home." In doing so, their nasty-minded sisters attacked family values wholesale, promoted abortion-on-demand as a mere personal health issue, worked ceaselessly to promote quota-hiring and dumbed-down educational standards resulting in catastrophic pop-cult milieus that degrade everything they touch.
Concerning LBJ, our point is that having sacrificed middle-class independence on the altar of a rapacious Welfare State, families in general and women in particular had no choice but to abandon parenting in stable homes. The effects proved cruel and even wicked-- collectivism's Culture of Death lurks with us yet. It will be generations, if ever, before birth-rates and decent child-rearing practices requiring a stable home-life can re-assert themselves.
"...families in general and women in particular had no choice but to abandon parenting in stable homes. The effects proved cruel and even wicked-- collectivism's Culture of Death lurks with us yet. It will be generations, if ever, before birth-rates and decent child-rearing practices requiring a stable home-life can re-assert themselves..."
Sorry, who has the worst maternity leave laws of any westernized country? And why is that exactly? Do we need a higher birth rate? As far as decent child-rearing is concerned, is this even possible when women that are financially supporting their under-employed (or absent) husbands/sperm-donors are forced to take their 6-WEEK OLDS TO DAYCARE lest they lose their jobs or give up on their higher education? OK, OK, it is all LBJ's fault, and those nasty feminazis, you're right. It is entirely LBJ/the Welfare State's fault that dad has an underpaying/no job, and that mom has to go to work after having her one child--instead of popping out 10 kids and spending her life in slippers, popping antidepressants, while breastfeeding; to be able to have the energy/emotional strength to give Dad his pipe and his 4 course meal when he gets home. Because that is secretly the life she has always wanted for herself.
Anyways, this tidbit is for T.J./anonymous #2:
http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
Post a Comment