>> Saturday, November 29, 2008
America's descent will be in some part due to Al Gore's most enduring legacy.
No, not the War on Weather.
America's descent will be in some part due to Al Gore's most enduring legacy.
No, not the War on Weather.
That's not the change I thought I knew!
In the spirit of the title of this blog, I offer this article I stole from Ms. Green's blog. There's been a lot of talk about how Obumble will likely govern from the center, move a bit to the right, discard some campaign rhetoric as he meets the reality of the White House. I say it's safer for us to consider what he has done, whence he comes and how he has always been on given topics to understand what he'd at least like to do if he can manage it. I wonder if anyone's going to call this a "wedge" issue?
In keeping with the intent of this blog, that of chronicling the “descent” of America into a maelstrom of fascism and moral degeneracy, I believe we must understand the process by which the descent of America is most likely to occur.
We’ve pointed out Obama has plans for implementing his vision for the future of America here. But it is important for us to know and to recognize the steps he plans to take toward accomplishing his goal:
The Socialization of America.
Vladamir Lenin, as we have discussed, created a Socialist political system in Russia through a bloody, prolonged revolt, but if Obama intends to change the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America, he must be much more subtle than that.
History (or should I say, the knowledge of history) has put him at a disadvantage.
Many Americans, particularly those old enough to remember, and those who have studied history before the revisionists changed it, have an understanding of the far reaching negative consequences of creating and maintaining a Socialist system. Those consequences are listed in the post previously linked. Those Americans who don’t know or remember, would do well to talk to any person who had the good fortune to escape Soviet Russia, Communist China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.
No, Obama will have to implement his plan incrementally, taking baby steps as it were, if he is to accomplish this monumental change.
Now, it would appear that the former "Manchurian Candidate" may very well be the "Manchurian President".
We don’t know exactly how he hopes to accomplish it, but we know from his speeches, writings, and interviews what things he specifically wants to change first.
Perhaps the interjection of a caveat would be in order at this point. We must keep in mind that any speculation about Obama’s intentions must be predicated upon the word, “if”.
If Obama is telling the truth. If Obama really believes in the changes he proposes. If Obama was not simply being a politician who will say whatever he believes it will take to win your vote.
What he says he will do and what he actually does may not necessarily be the same thing.
He has stated the first thing he will do as President is work to effectively disarm the military by cutting spending on “unproven missile technology“, ending the war in Iraq (surrender), and reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons, etc.
Curiously, he also promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he will do is work toward passing the Freedom of Choice act.
How many other things does he plan to do first?
We have all heard the term, “slippery slope” being used to describe the possible ramifications of impending legislation that might open the door to possible Constitutional abuses in the future. I suspect Obama will use the proverbial slippery slope to his full advantage, if he indeed intends to Socialize America.
Many Conservatives, particularly talk radio show hosts, warn of us that Obama, along with a Democrat controlled Congress, will attempt to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. A Fairness Doctrine would be a first step toward restricting, or even outlawing free speech, which is currently a fundamental right guaranteed us in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This suggestion has been refuted by Obama apologists, however, there is ample evidence that many Democrat lawmakers do indeed want to pursue that legislation.
It is a first step on that slippery slope. Other incremental policy changes could be additional steps. And then, if we are not vigilant, we may be find ourselves in a hole from which we cannot dig ourselves out.
Thus, I am reminded of an old joke:
Rueben, after enjoying a few drinks at his local tavern, and finding himself a bit too inebriated to safely drive himself home, decided as he often did, to forgo the drive and walk home, which was a short walk, particularly if he took a short cut through the local cemetery.
On this particularly dark, rainy night, there was little light to illuminate his path, but he had made this trip many times before, so it quite surprised Rueben when he fell into a freshly dug grave, which hadn’t been there previously.
He immediately began scratching, clawing, and jumping, trying desperately to climb out of the grave to no avail. Finally, after several minutes , exhausted by his fruitless efforts to extract himself from his predicament, he decided to make himself as comfortable as possible and wait for morning, when he knew someone would arrive to ready the graveside for the upcoming funeral service. He knew he would be rescued at that point, and it being a warm, though wet summer’s night, he would be uncomfortable, but safe until then.
So, he sat down in a relatively dry corner to await the dawn.
Presently, another inebriated man came by, and like Rueben, fell into the open grave. He didn’t see Ruben crouched over there in the corner. Ruben watched with some amusement as his new grave-mate scrambled and clawed and scratched at the slippery mud inside the grave.
Finally, Ruben spoke:
“Friend, you aren’t going to get out of here.”
But he did!
Many on the left accuse us on the right of fear mongering when we attempt to warn others of the possibility of impending fascism in America.
I submit fear is perhaps the only thing that can save us.
Consider yourselves forewarned.
Looks like Al-Qaeda is testing his holiness, our new POTUS-elect!
Since Bush went to war against Saddam to avenge the assassination attempt on his dad, doesn't it follow that The One's Reason for attacking any Al-Qaeda units over the next four years will be as an act of revenge for being called a "house negro"?
The world loves U.S. now!
We're starting to see a pattern here!
We the People of the United States of America
Attention: Governors of States, Secretaries of States, Attorney Generals, FBI
Officials, Homeland Security Officials, State Department Officials, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Officials, Federal Elections Committee, Electors and
Electoral College, Congressmen, Senators, State, Federal and Supreme Court
Judges, Election Officials:
This letter is to put you on notice in regards to the following troubling facts:
1) From August 21 until now some 17 legal actions were filed all over this nation
and at least 16 more are about to be filed shortly: those were individual or class
actions, in different State and Federal courts.
The plaintiffs: US citizens, voters, electors, different Party officials and candidates for office are alleging that Mr.Obama’s eligibility for Presidency was never verified by any governmental
agency and mounting evidence suggests that he does not qualify as a Natural
Born citizen and therefore cannot be sworn as the President of the United States.
These actions were not heard on merits yet. The first action, filed by the former
Deputy Attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania, Phillip J Berg against Mr.
Obama and DNC, titled Berg v Obama el all is currently in the Supreme Court,
awaiting resolution of question, whether a voter has standing to bring an issue of
eligibility to court.
Regardless of the Court decision on this matter, other parties
with superior standing have filed similar actions. A second case has reached the
Supreme Court recently. This case was filed by New Jersey attorney, Leo C
Donofrio against the Secretary of State of New Jersey Nina Mitchell Wells. Mr.
Donofrio states in his legal action that Ms. Wells did not fulfill her duties and did
not verify the eligibility of the candidates.
For example, she allowed on the ballot not only Mr. Obama, but another candidate, representing Labor party, that admitted that he is not a Natural Born citizen, but was rather born in Nicaragua.
The very State and Federal officials that took the oath of office to uphold the
Constitution, are trampling all over the Constitution and our rights as citizens to
elect a candidate that is eligible to be the President according to the Constitution.
2) Numerous voters, concerned citizens have turned to the offices of the
Secretaries of States and found out that none of the Secretaries of States verified
Mr. Obama’s eligibility.
Routinely the Secretaries of States simply allowed Mr.Obama to sign a form, stating that he is able to perform the function of the President without any independent verification that his statement is truthful and correct.
3) Numerous voters and concerned citizens have contacted the Federal
Elections Committee (FEC) and found out that FEC did not do any verification of
Mr. Obama’s eligibility either.
FEC representatives have stated that they are dealing with financial aspects of the campaign, and even that was not done by the FEC, since for roughly half of the 650 million raised by Mr. Obama, there was no documentation, no names of the donors and there were numerous reports
that there is a high probability that at least 65 million came from non US citizens.
4) There was no investigative reporting in the Press, since predominantly liberal
media was pushing for Obama for president and was unwilling to show journalistic integrity and investigate or report anything negative in regards to Mr. Obama.
5) Most of the States in the Union contain statues in the election codes, that
characterize election fraud or aiding and abetting election fraud, as a felony,
punishable by lengthy jail terms.
For example, California election statue 18500 states: “ Any person, who commits fraud and any person who aids and abets fraud or attempts to abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two years or
6) We, the people, the citizens of this country demand that all of you do not aid or
abet commission of fraud, do not subject yourselves and others to the possible
charges of aiding and abetting fraud and investigate the following facts:
a. according to affidavits presented in the Berg v. Obama to the
Supreme Court, Sarah Obama, Mr.Obama’s paternal grandmother
has repeatedly stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and
she was present at the hospital, when he was born, which means
that Mr. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and not qualified for
Presidency. (based on 1952 code)
b. Mr. Obama has responded by posting on his web site “Fight the
Smears” a “short version” form of Certification of Live Birth’, but
categorically refused to provide a copy of a vault or (long version
birth certificate), that would provide for a name of a hospital and a
name and signature of the doctor. This is crucial, since the State of
Hawaii allows residents of Hawaii to register in the state of Hawaii
the birth of their children, born in another state or another country,
such as Kenya. Please see in attachment a sample Certificate of
Live Birth, Box 7C, asks for the County or State or other country of
birth.(this provision exists due to the fact that numerous Hawaiians
historically worked outside of the state, mostly on Solomon islands
and Guadalcanal). This document also has provisions for the name
of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor.
Additionally, Hawaii became a State in 1959, only two years before
Mr. Obama’s birth. At a time numerous residents of Hawaii did not
have birth certificates, therefore the state of Hawaii allowed
residents born from 1902 until 1971 to obtain a different document
called Certification of Hawaiian birth, that could be obtained simply
by the statement made by a relative without any corroborating
evidence. Therefore the short version birth certificate, posted by Mr.
Obama on his web site, could’ve been based on an affidavit made
by his mother or most probably by one of his grandparents, that he
was born in Hawaii, even if he actually was born in Kenya. This
could’ve been done not because Mr. Obama’s relatives thought that
he would run for president one day, but simply to avoid the hustle
and expense of going through some eight years of immigration
c. As of now no one was able to locate any hospital in Hawaii, any nurse, any doctor that would provide any evidence that Mr. Obama
indeed was born on Hawaii.
d. Mr. Obama refused to provide any documents in Berg v Obama
e. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of his vault or long
version birth certificate.
f. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of any records by any
g. Madelyn Dunham, his maternal grandmother remained silent and
never refuted the statements that Mr. Obama was not born in
Hawaii and no access was ever allowed to any reporters to ask
Mrs. Madelyne Dunham one single question: “in what hospital on
Hawaii was Mr. Obama born?’
h. Even if Mr. Obama would’ve been born in Hawaii (all the evidence
states otherwise), he would’ve lost his citizenship by virtue of
moving to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship.
Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and Ms. Ann Dunham-
Obama-Soetoro had to relinquish her son’s US citizenship in order
to gain Indonesian citizenship.
i . In 1981, during the ban on travel to Pakistan for US citizens, Mr.
Obama by his own admission had travelled to Pakistan. The only
reasonable explanation, is that he did it using his Indonesian
passport and using his prior name Barry Soetoro or his Kenyan
passport, since he was entitled to the Kenyan citizenship, due to his
father’s Kenyan citizenship (in 1963 Mombasa area became a part
of Kenya), or he could’ve had a passport of British protected
person, since at the time of his birth, in 1961, the area of Mombasa
(his fathers homeland) was not independent yet (not until 1963) and
was called Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar, British Protected Area. (it
was ruled at the time by the Royal family from Oman and was part
of British Protected areas).
Based on all of the above Mr. Obama was never a Natural born citizen, and he
would’ve lost his natural born status, even if he had it by virtue of getting an
Indonesian Citizenship, and he has divided allegiance and cannot become the
President of the US.
We the People, citizens of the United States of America, demand that you
investigate these acts and refrain from certifying the vote or signing the
Certificate of Ascertainment (to be signed by the Governors and Secretaries of
States before the December 15 vote by the electors.)
We demand that the Electors of the Electoral College refrain from signing the Certificate of Vote until there is verification of eligibility of Mr. Obama by properly authenticated
documents, such as vault (long version) birth certificate, that shows the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor in Hawaii, birthing
records from the hospital in Hawaii, certified copies of all and any passports held
with immigration stamps, particularly immigration stamps from Pakistan from
1981, school enrollment records from Indonesia, Occidental college, Columbia University and Harvard college, that would show citizenship listed at the time of
We demand that proper investigation would be done and, if the
above facts and allegations are found to be true and correct, Mr. Obama be decertified
of the ballot.
We, the People of the United States of America, the land of law and order,
the land of Constitution.
This insightful column gives yet more actual reasons why Obama won. Note there is little having to do with his policies. This is the case because despite the rantings of some who visit here and at our other blogs, real consideration of the policy differences were of less than secondary concern to the faithful followers of the messiah. I think we can safely say that the #1 reason Obama won is because he's not Bush. It doesn't matter whether or not their hatred for Bush is based on reality, which it isn't. It is based on the same empty rhetoric that the left has thrown Bush's way since he legally and legitimately won the presidency over the woeful loser, AlGore. The linked piece breaks it down to a particular segment of the population, the indoctrinated youth of America.
Click the title...or here if you don't want to reach up.
Another Friend of Obama...another reason to question Dear Leader's judgment.
And The One's devoted followers wonder why we fight!
Surely the naysayers saw this coming! Please tell me they aren't surprised at the Right's reaction to president-elect Barrack Hussein Obama? What would have been the Left's reaction had McCain won? I dare say it would not be what the Right's reaction to Obama currently is. The mantra, 'four more years of Bush' would be even now the talk of Washington and media elites alike, along with their sycophantic supporters. But it wouldn't be what we're seeing now.
So what makes Barack so different from McCain? Primarily, McCain didn't utter even a tenth of the troubling remarks Obama made, and less than a tenth of the questionable associations. What makes Barack so different is his party affiliation, and the butt-slobbering adoration of mainstream media.
The fear the Right feels for Barack has nothing to do with the color of his skin, and everything to do with the words that have come out of his mouth.
Feodor and Dan were just as fearful of a McCain presidency as the Right is of Obama. So where's the dividing line, because it's certainly not race. It must be political and spiritual ideology.
Gun sales would never have spiked after a McCain win because McCain has never supported the banning of gun-- nor has he ever spoken negatively about our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Folks like ER, Dan, and-- based on his plethora of comments here and elsewhere --Feodor, have criticized George Bush relentlessly. But as I said elsewhere, the Left has never been gracious in defeat.
This blog's purpose is not to trash Obama day in and day out. It is to chronicle what an Obama presidency means for American liberty. The "STASI" post is a direct quote from Obama himself.
For those who disagree... fine. That is your right. But don't think simply because you disagree with us, that our fears are unfounded. If nothing comes of those fears the Right will heave of great collective sigh of relief. But what are we to think with Franken and the Dems not even trying to hide the fact that they are stealing the senate race in Minnesota? Just like they tried to do in Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004. Why are the Democrats so feverishly glazed with eagerness over the thought of a filibuster proof Senate?
Nothing good will come of such a thing. Nothing "good" resides in the heart of the Democratic party; not if Howard Dean is any indication. Not if Harry Reid is any indication. Not if Nancy Pelosi is any indication. And not if that hell-bound lying son of a bitch Jack Murtha is ANY indication... sincerest apologies to the scumbag's mother.
"You think the RNC could get this many people of color into a single room?...Maybe if they got the hotel staff in there."
--Howard Dean, Feb. 2005
"The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser."
--Harry Reid, May 2005
Now that we have control of Congress we will do something to help the American people with these high fuel prices.
--Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 13, 2006
"No goddamn way this carpetbagger’s gonna beat me!"
--Jack Murtha, Oct 28, 2008. Speaking of Retired Army LTC William Russell; this after Murtha called his constituents "Racists" and "Rednecks" and accused fellow Marines [Semper Fi!] of cold-blooded murder; all but one of whom has been exonerated with no apology from Murtha for trying and convicting them in the court of public opinion.
Read Ralph Peters' column in the New York Post.
I've got to laugh at the first sentence in the article.
"The American people have spoken, and whatever our personal preferences, our duty as citizens is to support our next president. And he's going to need support..."
“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.
Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.
A rose, by any other name…
If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need.
In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal.
This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated.
The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.
It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia.
This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One. After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control.
The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens.
During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses.
Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship.
The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical.
In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions. Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense.
In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them.
Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences.
National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer.
Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party.
No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned.
The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power.
This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.
And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order.
Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice.
None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans.
There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right.
And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia.
Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“.
Those are Obama’s words.
Now that Barack Hussein Obama is President-elect of The United States of America, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. Fortunately, he didn't get the filibuster-proof majority in Congress he needs to literally "change" America to his Utopian vision of a Marxist America. But he can do some serious damage to the country, nevertheless.
Make no mistake. Obama does not have the country's best interest at heart. His motivation is power. Power for himself. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on his personal power, rather than the power of a free society. Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations.
Like Vladimir Lenin, Obama will ignore the equalateral society envisioned by Marx.
He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God.
Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit.
Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains:
Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.
That is what Rohm Emanuel means. But don't let the name fool you. Barack campaigned on bringing "change" to Washington, which isn't remarkably different from what George W. Bush promised in 2000 with his "New Tone". The only difference is the pair of lips from which both promises were boldly proclaimed. Barack promised change, and change is what we're getting, but we're also getting a new tone in Washington.
Remember when Clinton came to town? EVERYONE thought the end of Liberty was at hand, and it could be argued that Clinton set the stage for the end of Liberty. If he had taken Bin Laden when he was offered to him, Bush wouldn't have pushed the Patriot Act and Liberal panty-wetters wouldn't be screaming still today of the rape of our Constitutional liberties. These are the same ones who voted for Barack Obama who will undoubtedly attempt, and likely get passed, some measure of a raping of our Constitutional liberties.
So there's going to be a new tone in Washington... Change. Beginning with the new White House Chief of Staff, Rohm Emanuel [Hebrew: "Rohm" meaning high, lofty, "Emanuel" meaning, our God is with us]. Here is some of Mr. Emanuel's more colorful moments.
"Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways." On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name." His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo"."
Four more years!
Maybe that phrase should be included in this week's celebrations among the victorious.
I was reading comments on a news-site earlier today and saw a comment that made me pause. The commenter claimed to have voted for Obama then pointed out something that I've not heard offered before. While Obama's campaign was spreading the "damning" fact that John McCain voted with Dubya 90% of the time, no one has even bothered to see how often Obama voted with the present prez! I'd say his percentage was not much different than McCain's!
Now, I admit to the casual liberal (that means you, Pain-Holler visitor) - I have no links to back up my claim...mainly because it's unlikely that any media-types even bothered to look up that info. I don't have the time or the give-a-shiite to do that research. That should have been the media's job. A simple process of googling several different key phrases resulted in nada.
I did find an article from back in October, however, that lends a bit of support to the notion.
From CNN, no less!
Here's a teaser I hope will prompt a full read:
On election night, as the drama unfolded in the new American Messiah's favor, I wrote a one-word post that sums up my feelings about the tenure of GW. I didn't know just how accurate my one-word post was until I read Tara Wall's article after reading the comment at the news-site.
WASHINGTON (CNN) --" Since Barack Obama incessantly makes the case that a John McCain administration would equate to another Bush term, it's worth looking at just how much Sen. Obama himself is in agreement with the unpopular president.
Does that mean that he, too, would be a repeat of President Bush? If one were to apply his logic, maybe so.
Here are 20 reasons why... " - Tara Wall October 13, 2008
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. - Barack Obama, from his victory speech on Tuesday night.
This is Thursday.
Barack Obama is signaling a shift in tactics and temperament as he moves from candidate to president-elect, picking sharp-elbowed Washington insiders for top posts. His choice Thursday for White House chief of staff — Rahm Emanuel, a fiery partisan who doesn't mind breaking glass and hurting feelings — is a significant departure from the soft-spoken, low-key aides that "No-Drama Obama" has surrounded himself with during his campaign. - (Emphasis Mine.)
Apparently, what Obama was saying was that we need to achieve a more intense level of partisanship and pettiness and immaturity than we have ever seen before.
At the same moment when Barack Obama was naming one of the very people who have poisoned our politics for so long as his Chief of Staff, Harry Reid was having a meeting with Joe Leiberman to try to determine what Leiberman's punishment would be for the crime of having a mind of his own.
Absolutely no "Mavericks" will be tolerated on the Left side of the aisle.
There will be no dissent. There will be no criticism. There will be no compromise.
George W. Bush went to Washington with the idea that he could set a "new tone" there, by trying to include Democrats and work together with them.
We see how that worked out for him.
And so does Barack Obama.
Rest assured that he will not make the same mistake.
There will be no dissent. There will be no criticism. There will be no compromise.
This is bi-partisanship, Democrat style.
I hope the Republican Party is seeing this, and learning something from it all...
This is going to be a very costly lesson for a whole lot of people.
It would be nice to say I was shocked, or surprised, but in truth I cannot. Everyone is reveling in the historicity of Obama's election, and I can't agree more. This moment is an historic one; for the first time a black man has risen to the highest office in the world. But what next? What will President Barack Hussein Obama do next? More importantly, how will what he does affect not just me-- one American, but three-hundred million Americans? The best way to determine what one may or may not do is look back at what they've already done.
In his own words Barack Obama chose his friends in college carefully. No one does anything "carefully" without deliberate intent; without hope of a desired outcome. When one does something carefully, there is a desire to have the fruit of one's labor bear a specific, desired fruit. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout," he wrote in Dreams From My Father, "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." In short, Barack Obama chose exclusion rather than inclusion.
Politically active blacks-- code for angry, disdainful of America and white government. Liberal. Recent History is replete with instances of black hatred of non-black's: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, reverend Jeremiah Wright, and now reverend Otis Moss, all of whom have expressed antipathy for white America. This did not the Reverend Martin Luther King do.
Barack historically invokes King's Dream while riding the rip currents of mentors and heroes who have propagated fear and hatred in the name of that very same Dream. Tawana Brawley, slander and defamation; the Crown Heights riot, the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum; Freddy's Fashion Mart, and the death of 7 store employees, because of one man's seemingly insane rage against "white interlopers" and "Jews." The list of atrocities in the name of black social patriation is extensive. King had a dream of peace, but men like Sharpton, Jackson, and others used that dream for political and personal glory.
The so-called reverend Wright, damns American in God's name-- a little "white" blasphemy that shocked religious whites across the nation. Wright, the president-elect's one-time spiritual mentor and family friend, lost now somewhere under the bus for political expediency.
Louis Farrakhan whose list of spiritual and social atrocities are too numerous to count is praised and rewarded with a lifetime achievement award from Barack's church-- a church that is also somewhere under the bus.
William Ayers-- Marxist, terrorist, murderer; free and clear on a legal technicality, who on the day of 9/11, in the pages of the New York Times, expressed no regret for his crimes but rather said he felt he didn't do enough.
Friends-- if history is any indication --that were carefully chosen with intent of purpose toward a specific outcome or stage-setter. These were the friends of president elect Barack Obama.
Promises have been made. Many promises. And like every other politician before him, those promises are to be taken with a grain of salt, for all the likelihood any of us will ever see those promises fulfilled. Tax cuts for 95% of wage earners? Impossible. The current state of our economy forbids it. But despite that, Congress desires to raise taxes, not cut them. Congress is not about to lay its constitutionally provided power over the purse strings at the feet of any president's whim. Even Clinton didn't get carte blanche over the desires of the democratically led congress. Barack will not get exactly what he wants, but the real fear is that he may get more than he asks for.
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Higher taxes will deepen the hole our economy currently finds itself in. The bar Obama raised delineating that line between patriotic taxpayer and 'spread-wealth recipient' has crept downward over the last few weeks. Joe the Plumber was concerned about a business he might buy that makes a little over 250k a year. Soon after-- after the Obama investigation of Joe, and Media's complicit silence --the number slipped to 200k. Then to 150k, and finally(?) 120k. Will it slip further? to the magic 45k number? 'Sorry folks, I wanted to spread the wealth, but after looking at the numbers it's just not possible. Not if we want to institute the nearly one-trillion in new spending...' But this is to be expected. No president keeps every promise he makes. He simply can't.
What else can history tell us about the present? Let's talk Civilian Police Force, for which the Constitution does not provide power to the Federal Government, but to states only. A police force as strong and equally equipped as the greatest military force in earth's history. History shows us what happens when governments control the police.
What can history tell us about governments that determine what is and is not acceptable speech? What does history say about those who express themselves contrary to governmental standards of speech? Reread the previous paragraph and extrapolate to this one.
The Fairness Doctrine? Some say no one in government is even talking about it, but these same people haven't been listening. Senator Charles Schumer, when asked yesterday morning, "Are you a supporter of telling radio stations in America what content they should have on their radio station?" replied:
"Well, you know there are -- the radio air, it's not that this is like printing a broadside. You would never say anyone who wanted to hire a printing press or go on a computer has to have any view. Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not, particularly on television and radio... the very same people that don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you're allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."
Free speech-- SOME free speech --is likened unto pornography by a senator sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." This alone is astounding.
History shows us that nothing really changes; nothing is truly new. If it happened once, it can happen again. The problem many see in the president elect are both his past, deliberately chosen associations, and their influence upon him as reflected in many of his stated desired policy changes. Socialized health care, creating a whole new, and more expansive subset of government dependents. Higher taxes on the rich [whatever the final "line in the sand" ] to spread the wealth around; as Karl Marx wrote: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. A government controlled, richly funded police force; gestapo-esque perhaps? The First Amendment muzzled by arbitrary partisan standards, and anything outside those standards the verbal equivalent of pornography?
What was it Reagan said?
"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
There is no new thing under the sun! And understanding this, who in forty years will stand outside the walls Barack desires to erect, and demand that the then democratic potentate of America tear down the Wall?
What great Moses, after forty years in the back-end of political Sinai, will demand the then democratic pharaoh to let his people go?
It is quite possible that none of these dark visions will ever come to pass. No president ever succeeds in getting all that he wants. The danger however, especially in light of one party control over House, Senate, AND the White House, lies in the possibility this president could get MORE than he's asking.
I prayerfully hope that the Change President Barack Obama brings us is nothing reflective of history. I pray his governance is indeed historic; that he can actually accomplish and forge a new understanding between the partisan party politics and ethnicities that remain today divided against each other. I hope he can truly heal this nation.
But history says my hopes have little chance of bearing new fruit. Change, yes... but what kind of change? We know what history has had to say.
What now has the Future to say?
First of all, I want to congratulate President-Elect Obama on his win, and I also want to congratulate Senator McCain on a valiantly fought campaign.
I'm not particularly happy that Obama won the White House, but at the same time, I'm not particularly upset that John McCain did not.
John McCain is a good man, and has served this Country in one way or another all of his life. I'm sure that most of the things he has done over the course of his political career, he thought were in the best interest of this Country.
But John McCain, over the last few years, has done some absolutely maddening things. McCain-Feingold, The Gang of Seven, flirting with the Kerry campaign in hopes of being selected as V.P. on the Democrat ticket in 2004 come to mind.
John McCain is a fine Republican.
Posted by TugboatCapn
Naturally, among the first words of Obama’s acceptance was what this election shows. He then goes on to say words to the effect that it shows we are indeed the “United” States of America.
I think it shows something else. I think it shows the lack of intelligence of the American electorate, which has been demonstrated by people like Howard Stern in his little demo wherein he speaks to Obama supporters and shows them to be idiots as they choose from a selection of “Obama” positions which were really McCain positions.
I think it shows the level of hatred (and ignorance of) the Bush administration that Obama supporters were so willing to overlook all the blatant negatives of so unworthy a choice for president in order to prevent what they considered to be a mere extension of the Bush regime.
I think it shows a distinct level of superficiality that support for the “historical” aspect of electing a black candidate to the presidency could override all sense and reason.
I think it shows how much work conservative voices have before them to correct the blatant misconceptions regarding conservatism so that a repeat of this travesty never again occurs.
This is not the end of conservatism or the Republican Party. This is the beginning of a whole host of reasons why people will begin to shun liberal philosophy.
By the Grace of God I pray that our worst fears regarding the consequences of this election will not be realized. I’d much prefer to be scorned and mocked than for this country to suffer as I feel certain it will. America has overcome much in our history. May we overcome this.
For the first time in my adult life, I am disappointed in America.
Posted by Marshall Art
By this time we now know Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President of the United States of America. I haven't quite sorted out my thoughts on this yet, but suffice it to say for now, I am disappointed in the gullibility of the American people. I really thought the majority of this country was smarter than this.
I guess I was wrong.
How anyone could have fallen for this untested neophyte is beyond my comprehension.
I will share one thought:
We can hope that President-elect Obama's administration is as effective as the Democratically controlled Congress and Senator Obama has been in the last two years. The absolute best that we can hope for now is that the Democrats continue to be a do-nothing political party. Then, although America will not have improved, at least it won't have gotten much worse.
More on this when I have collected my thoughts.
Posted by Mark
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.