The Manchurian President

>> Thursday, November 20, 2008

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.


Monk-in-Training November 20, 2008 at 11:53 AM  

I have two points.

1. Pres. Bush has negotiated and approved a "Status of Forces Agreement" with Iraq, in which he has agreed to withdrawing troops. Say what you will about surrender, it starts on Pres. Bush's watch.

2. "there is ample evidence that many Democrat lawmakers do indeed want to pursue that legislation"

Please name one. Every place I have looked supposed supporters deny any interest at all, and issue statements such as Senator Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico, "Somebody plucked this out of the clear blue sky. This is a completely made-up issue."

†Deo adjuvante, non timendum
With the help of God, there is nothing to fear

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford November 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM  

At least, Mark, you are honest enough to state clearly that fear is all you have left.

This commode full of crap is without a doubt the best evidence yet that you have, to a man, become a singularity of stupid. Thought cannot escape you, even as you suck in all the really odd, demented stuff floating near your orbit.

Keep up the good work. The more right-wingers like you go all public with your dementia, the further and further in to the future we can push your eventual return to power.

Al-Ozarka November 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM  

"At least, Mark, you are honest enough to state clearly that fear is all you have left."

As it was for you the past eight years, J-Off.

Have fun with your insane War on Weather, pal.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford November 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM  

"War on Weather"?

It must be windy because the nuts are falling further and further from the tree. . .

Dan Trabue November 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM  

Geoffrey, you know, it was sorta fun at first, but seriously, this is like shooting fish in a barrel using a bazooka, in a barrel where the fish were already dead and devoid of life and any sign of brain activity, and there's no water in the barrel, just the dead fish. You know? Like that.

It's almost lost its humor.


Mark November 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM  

Heh, heh, heh... One can measure how close one comes to the truth when his opponents respond with ad hominen attacks, but no legitimate argument.

I feel vindicated by the very vitriol exhibited by these pathetic Libtards.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM  

Monk, I wish you'd change your non de plume. It is an insult to my hero, Adrian Monk.

Here is a few quotes from Dems (easily found in a Google search, by the way) who support the so-called fairness doctrine, since you asked:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones. Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

That was easy, Monkey, give me a hard one.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM  

Jeffy, you whine, "At least, Mark, you are honest enough to state clearly that fear is all you have left."

No, you don't pay attention. I said perhaps fear is the only thing that can save us, and it references the illustration made directly previously. We have plenty left, including impeachment, or simply waiting until Obama's policies produce dire results and even Libs join with Conservatives and vote the bum out.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM  

Monkey, again you misunderstand. We are not at war with Iraq. The Iraqis are our allies. Bush isn't agreeing to surrender to terrorists. He is agreeing to draw down the troops so the Iraqi government can stand on it's own.

Which has been the plan from the beginning.

Monk-in-Training November 20, 2008 at 5:08 PM  

Mark, I am in fact a Friar Postulant, not a Monk, the Monk nickname came from a friend in a theology class.

It appears to me that Sen. Schumer's comment was more of a jibe at Fox's "fair and balanced" motto, rather than a legislative program announcement.

I searched Sen. Schumer's website pretty extensively (man these guys have a lot of press releases and legislative stuff going on) and did not find a single instance of any plans to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

Those quotes you had from last year were then, this is now when they have real power, and as far as I can tell, the Democratic Party simply isn't interested in this subject. They have far bigger fish to fry now.

I also recall several Republican Senators being pretty feisty about this subject when the whole Immigration battle was going on in 2006.

It is really a moot point anyway, if it was re-instituted, people would just use internet broadcasting or satellite radio and ignore it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford November 20, 2008 at 5:12 PM  

Mark, the reason I don't "engage" your "arguments" is because there is nothing to engage. Just as I would not attempt to tell a deluded man who believed he was Napoleon that he was not, in fact, Napoleon, I refuse to give anything any of you type (I really don't like calling it "writing") here the dignity of a serious response. That not a one of you is cognizant of your own insanity makes me glad that, at the very least, none of you live close enough to me to cross my path, muttering under your breath; I might be forced to give you money so you could get a cup of coffee and a night in a shelter or something.

You see, Mark, here's the thing. Treating the delusions of maniacs only encourages them. Since not a single item posted here bears even passing resemblance to the world inhabited by the vast majority of human beings, coming here is like visiting the zoo. Lucky for me, I don't have to stay.

Oh, and Mark? Monk-In-Training is an actual, you know, Monk-In-Training.

Dense is as dense does, I suppose.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM  

"the reason I don't "engage" your "arguments" is because there is nothing to engage. Just as I would not attempt to tell a deluded man who believed he was Napoleon that he was not, in fact, Napoleon, I refuse to give anything any of you type (I really don't like calling it "writing") here the dignity of a serious response."

Quid Quo Pro, Jeffy, Quid Quo Pro

tugboatcapn November 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM  

So, then...

Infringement of our First Ammendment Rights is not a problem as long as we can find a way around it?

Dan, I'm glad you find displaying your stupidity to be so easy.

You have not presented one single valid, relevant point, nor have you won an argument here since we started this blog.

All you have done is insult, disparage, and ridicule.

I'm glad you are beginning to lose interest.

We had all lost interest in anything you had to say years ago.

Adios, Amigo.

Don't let the door knob hit you...

Mark November 20, 2008 at 5:41 PM  

Monk, I apologize. I didn't realize you were really a real Monk-in-training. Good for you.

I read your profile. It didn't appear to me that you were seriously taking seminary clases.

I certainly hope you aren't attending one of those anti-Biblical Liberal seminaries. We need more good fundamental ministers.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 5:42 PM  

And I agree with your Latin motto. If God be with us, who can be against us?

Only People like Geoff and Dan.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford November 20, 2008 at 7:36 PM  

How do I infringe on your First Amendment Rights? You have every right to type all the nonsense you wish. I would be the last person to want you to stop.

On the other hand, the First Amendment doesn't shield you, or anyone else, from ridicule. In fact, it encourages all sorts of things.

By the way, since I am not the US government or Congree, I couldn't, under the words of the First Amendment, infringe on your rights. You have no freaking clue what the Constitution says, or how it operates, do you?

Feodor November 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM  

We need people who read the Bible with the example of church tradition in mind and the human faculty of reason in gear.

So rare around here in Falwellville.

tugboatcapn November 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM  

THe Fairness Doctrine will infringe on everyone's First Ammendment Rights.

You support people who want to re-instate it. (And then, despite direct quotes from their own mouths, you ridicule the idea that they do.)

Do I have to break everything down to Fisher-Price level for you?

At least this time you were able to string together two sentences without calling somebody stupid...

tugboatcapn November 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM  

And, yes, I do know quite a bit about the Constitution and how it works...

Do you?

Marshall Art November 20, 2008 at 8:53 PM  

Once again, Nancy Pelosi has also made noise in support of the Fairness Doctrine. It also isn't much to rely upon what a Dem politician says or doesn't say today. Simply a review of what they've said or done in the past provides enough to make decent assumptions. It's always a safe bet to assume the worst about them and then heave a great sigh of relief should one be wrong. I think I can speak for everyone who posts opinion pieces here that we'd very much prefer to be wrong about Obama, thought the likelihood is low. It'll be nice to see if he was just stringing along all you lefty chumps to get elected and now that he is, well, tack center! However such dreams yearn to be realized, I'll stand pat expecting the worst. It seems so logical.

Mark November 20, 2008 at 9:21 PM  

Daddio's response of "Have fun with your war on weather" refers to the scare tactics employed by the left while trying to convince gullible people that the world is in imminent danger of being drowned in a gigantic flood brought on by melting ice caps and rising water. This is what they say will result from Global Warming.

The left has the corner on fear mongering in this country. Lets talk about how they try to tell the elderly the Republicans want to take their Social Security away, or tell the parents of school children the Republicans want to take away their school lunches, or how they tell gullible lemming-mentality bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters such as yourselves that Global warming is more of an imminent threat to the World than Islamo-facsist terrorism.

Oh and let's not forget how Bush is going to invade the privacy of innocent American citizens with his "Domestic Wiretapping program".

If not for fear, the Liberals couldn't get anyone to believe their lies.

Anonymous,  November 20, 2008 at 10:03 PM  

"We need more good fundamental ministers."

Like a hole in the head.

Monk-in-Training November 21, 2008 at 6:19 AM  

Thank you Mark,
I have finished the theology program, and now entering a deeper, personal spiritual formation with my Order.

I try very hard to seek truth and to seek the One Who is Truth, and will do my best to remain faithful to His Gospel.

† Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Dei
† so that in all things God may be glorified

Al-Ozarka November 21, 2008 at 6:55 AM  

"I try very hard to seek truth and to seek the One Who is Truth, and will do my best to remain faithful to His Gospel." Monk

Hey, Monkster! That's mighty "right" of you!


So do I! And from what I've gleaned over the past three does everyone else who contributes to this blog.

Feodor November 21, 2008 at 8:01 AM  

Why am I not surprised Izard turns snippy with the meek. For some the pursuit of the Truth is not accompanied by the pursuit of the Good and, over time, becomes a habit of trying to be right in all the wrong ways.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford November 21, 2008 at 8:57 AM  

What direct-fucking-quote are you talking about, tuggy? Schumer was yanking that Fox anchorman's dork! I mean, Jesus-jumped-up-Christ, people. No one, not Chuck Schumer, not Nancy Pelosi, not Barack Obama - no one, not a single person, Democrat or Republican, has any intention of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

There are not quotes. There is no evidence. You people are all barking, howling mad.


Al-Ozarka November 21, 2008 at 9:52 AM  

"There are not quotes. There is no evidence. You people are all barking, howling mad." J-Off

Dude, I've read this same thing a thousand times over the past several years. But it was coming from those right of centerand directed at people very much like you.


Okay, Eric...he's gone from "stupid" to outright profanity and clear blasphemy. What shall we do with him?

I say let him continue. It's entertaining to watch.

Al-Ozarka November 21, 2008 at 9:58 AM  

"Every place I have looked supposed supporters deny any interest at all..." -Da-Monk

Monkster, perhaps there is reason they are backing away from the language?

Monk-in-Training November 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM  

I apologize for not being clear before, I never intended any sense that you or any others did not seek God's Truth, I only intended to convey my own desire.

It is entirely possible that the 'local' option could be the issue you say it is, I have not studied it enough to understand.

That being said, I still don't see how they could control satellite radio or internet broadcasting, should one choose to do it.

Al-Ozarka November 21, 2008 at 12:49 PM  

"I still don't see how they could control satellite radio or internet broadcasting, should one choose to do it."

Are you suggesting that limiting conservative voices to only these media is NOT controlling them?

Everyone doesn't have internet or Sat-radio. Everyone DOES have AM radio.

Limiting the market is controlling the message.

Al-Ozarka November 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM  

Monk, what do you make of this ?

Monk-in-Training November 21, 2008 at 4:17 PM  

Good afternoon, Al-Ozarka

I agree that limiting the market does limit (not sure I would go as far as 'control') the message. However, 'they' would be unable to stop up all flow of information, because of the technological access that Americans generally have. I think apathy could be more of a limit to political freedom than the Fairness Doctrine.

You asked what I made of that interview - well it sounds like a lot of the world was 9-10 years ago, fearful of the exploding technology of the Internet. His quote "but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet" may have reflected his dept's desire at the time, but neither the Clinton nor Bush administration has been able to regulate the internet very much.

ps, man what a bad picture of that guy, he looked totally depressed in it.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
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.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP