Thursday, November 6, 2008
Why Obama Will Be Worse Than Bush
To my substantial delight, a movement is already coalescing to impeach President-Elect Obama.
My reaction doesn't simply reflect my opinion that Obama is uniquely unsuitable to the office he will acquire next January.
I'm of the view that all presidents should be simultaneously inaugurated and impeached, and that there should be a streamlined procedure to expedite their conviction and removal from office upon each president's first documented violation of his constitutional oath.
This would be more than merely a convenient time-saving measure; it is entirely justified in light of the alacrity with which presidents become enemies of the Constitution. Nearly all newly installed presidents reveal themselves to be perjurers before the echo of their insipid inaugural addresses dies down. Indeed, in our degenerate socialist democracy it's impossible for a politician to become a "serious" presidential contender without promising, in extravagant detail, the crime wave he intends to preside over once enthroned.
But since there's no acceptable procedure for impeaching a candidate before he obtains public office, we would have to settle for a system in which presidents entered the office under the burden of impeachment and haunted by the prospect of immediate removal.
Granted, this would result in an executive turnover akin to that experienced by Argentina following its financial collapse earlier this decade, when that country went through five presidents in less than a year. Governmental paralysis would ensue, with legislation lingering unsigned, executive appointments left unmade, and "rogue" nations left un-bombed.
Some would describe the resulting state of affairs as a crisis. I'd describe it as a miraculous improvement on the status quo.
In an interview with the redoubtable Lew Rockwell, former Federal Judge Andrew Napolitano -- one of the few jurists in our history to display actual respect for the Constitution -- yielded to what he called the human virtue of hope by opining that it's possible Barack Obama (we pause to observe a moment of chastened reverence) will prove to be a friend to constitutionally protected individual liberties once he assumes office.
Judge Napolitano correctly points out that Obama, whose absence during critical votes has been a consistent trait of his legislative career, made a point of being present to vote in favor of renewing the PATRIOT [sic] Act and the revised FISA law that supposedly authorized unconstitutional electronic surveillance. (Not mentioned in that interview, but relevant to this discussion, is Obama's explicit disavowal of any intention to pursue investigations or criminal prosecutions of Bush administration figures implicated in torture and other abuses once he is in office.)
However, Napolitano suggested that those votes reflected a cynical, election-year design on Obama's part to neutralize criticism that he was in some sense "soft on terrorism." So the best case to be made here is that Obama was willing to abet the assault on individual liberties in order to win election so as to be able to undo the damage he helped inflict on the Constitution. This would mean, in principle, that he is willing to impose tangible injury on innocent people in exchange for power while piously insisting on the purity of his intentions.
So we'd be seeing a familiar routine: A politician compromises his professed principles, insisting this is necessary in order to obtain the power he needs to act on those discarded principles.
Judge Napolitano did make a substantive point when he observed that the Democratic Party, unlike the GOP, has a civil liberties constituency, even if its influence is negligible. But whether or not Obama sympathizes with that element of his coalition and harbors a desire to rectify atrocities committed by the Bu'ushists in the realm of civil liberties, the hyper-activist role he prescribes for the State will inevitably mean that his reign will be even worse for individual liberty than that of his predecessor.
During the era of Bush the Lesser, conservatives who claimed to oppose big, intrusive government at home embraced unlimited government for the purpose of conducting imperial warfare abroad. As the history of previous empires demonstrates, pretending that such an arrangement is possible is an exercise in purile self-deception: War is the definitive big government program, and -- to quote James Madison yet again -- "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
The same principle applies with even greater acuity to the enhancement of government power for domestic purposes. It is impossible to mobilize government power on behalf of wealth redistribution without commissioning widespread and wholesale violation of individual rights -- beginning, obviously, with the fundamental right to own and dispose of one's wealth and property.
Governments that get really serious about this sort of thing tend to kill all productive activity outright; often the only significant industry that remains is the manufacture of corpses out of once-living, breathing, productive human beings.
Barrack Obama, a one-time professor of constitutional law, has famously criticized the Constitution for defining liberty in terms of "negative" liberties -- meaning protections against various forms of state action. This is a hoary truism often invoked in theories of Constitutional law that were rooted in Marxism and nurtured by the federal government's post-New Deal demand for legal apologists and executors.
Obama, speaking as a state legislator in a recently discovered and inadequately publicized 2001 radio interview, observed that the civil rights revolution of the 1960s sought to overcome this "negative" concept of liberties, but was too wedded to the idea of pursuing its social revolution through the courts.
As he pointed out, "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.... [O]ne of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.” (Emphasis added.)
Here in one paragraph Obama at once reveals his core ideological commitments and answers the much-asked question, "What does a `community organizer' actually do?" From Obama's own words (soon to be printed in double-column, red-letter text on gild-edged, leather-bound paper, according to his more devoted followers) we learn that a community organizer is someone who assembles "coalitions of power" in the interest of "redistributive change."
This is an elborate way of saying that a "community organizer" is what less sophisticated people would call a Communist agitator.
Obama, who reads a teleprompter with panache and knows how to pose for a photo, often finds himself foundering when asked to extemporize.
He does have a certain facile glibness of the kind often mistaken for wit, as we saw when he dismissed charges that he is a socialist by "confessing" to sharing his brownies in kindergarten.
This was actually a moment of self-aggrandizing compound dishonesty worthy of Bill Clinton: In one stroke -- a carefully rehearsed "spontaneous" one-liner -- Obama offered a non-denial of his intentions while at once lying about the nature of socialism and adding another line to his auto-hagiography (a work constantly in progress):
1) And the Child Obama, seeing that the multitudes in his kindergarten were an hungered, did say:
2) Behold, my bosom abounds in compassion for you.
3) Therewith He did take of his brownies and -- offering thanks unto the Almighty State for its wisdom in erecting tax-subsidized child care through the great bounty of its divinely plundered wealth -- did break them and offer them to the others,
4) saying: Take, and eat; And the other children did eat, and gave thanks to Obama the Blessed for his divine generosity,
5) foreshadowing the day when He, the Embodiment of Change and Hope, would have the power to compel those heedless of the requirements of social justice to surrender their brownies for redistribution to those more worthy.
6) And the Child Obama did wax mighty in the Spirit of Ailinsky, and great wonders were wrought by his hand.
At the risk of committing heresy, I have to point out something His Holiness sought to conceal: Socialism isn't about sharing one's own brownies, but rather about the forcible collectivization of brownies by seizing them from others at gunpoint -- and then the ever-escalating use of lethal violence to regiment society once the inevitable shortage of brownies (or bread, or any other good subject to distribution through political rather than economic means) develops.
All State efforts to redistribute wealth and regiment the economy are, in principle and generally in practice, warfare against the rights of the governed. Obama's most impassioned supporters, some of whom have sung arias lamenting the criminal foreign aggression carried out by the Bush Regime, are already chanting hymns of praise in anticipation of the Holy One's war against the American bourgeoise.
Prominent among those psalmists is Norman Solomon, who wrote a splendid book indicting the corrupt entente between the Establishment media and the presidential warmaking apparatus (War Made Easy:How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death). Solomon insists that Obama's victory is nothing less than a mandate for war on Americans who stubbornly insist on the sanctity of their personal wealth.
"Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign: `Redistribute the wealth, spread the wealth around -- we can't do that,'" recalls Solomon. "Oh, yes we can. The 2008 presidential campaign became something of a referendum on `spreading the wealth.'"
Solomon complained -- inaccurately, alas -- that the Republican presidential campaign "recycled attacks on the principles of the New Deal. Like Franklin Roosevelt when he first ran for president in 1932, Barack Obama put forward economic prescriptions that were hardly radical. Yet, in the next few years, Obama's administration could accomplish great things -- reminiscent of the New Deal...."
Assuming that he's familiar with the relevant history, Solomon is actually assuming that Obama's campaign was a work of deliberate deception, as FDR's initial presidential bid certainly was. As I've noted before, the 1932 Democratic platform actually criticized Herbert Hoover from the right, condemning his profligacy, demanding a balanced budget, endorsing a sound currency backed by precious metals and the expansion of free trade. FDR's first running mate actually accused Hoover of shepherding the United States into socialism.
Once in power, of course, FDR pivoted sharply to the left, filling the executive branch with squalid Bolsheviks and building a corporate socialist state along the lines prescribed by Italian technocrat Giovanni Gentile, a key adviser to a disavowed disciple of Lenin named Benito Mussolini. FDR ran as a conservative, and governed as an aspiring totalitarian.
Obama campaigned as an unabashed European-style socialist and, if he is given the means, will rule like a post-colonial African dictator.
I say the latter not because of Obama's attenuated African ancestry, but rather because of his preferred style of mobilizing public support -- the grotesque Leni Riefenstahl-meets-Tony Robbins public spectacles that portend the advent of an Americanized version of Africa's "Big Man" theory of government.
Given Obama's youth, the bottomless devotion of his followers, the depth of our impending economic disaster, the eagerness of the mass media to help the Holy One "make history," the well-earned political disintegration of the Republican Party, and the totalitarian powers of the office Obama inherits, he may very well become America's second president-for-life, following the course set by FDR before he died and went to hell.
Can Obama rule by decree? Thanks to Bush's example, his answer would be: Yes, I can!
Can he and his followers overturn the 22nd Amendment? Yes, they can!
Can they succeed in creating an egalitarian paradise through forcible redistribution of wealth from the productive to the parasitical?
No -- they can't.
But that won't stop them from trying, even if they have to destroy what remains of our liberties in the process.
Essential reading to prepare for the dawning Age of Obama (peace be upon him).
Dum spiro, pugno!
at 4:07 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I had successfully held post-election depression at bay until reading the suggestion here that Obama's disciples could manage to eliminate the 22nd Amendment.
Time to check the supplies...
Would you agree?
"Barack Obama is the Presumptive 44th President, But Not the President-Elect Yet"
FYI, the question was in reference your comment "To my substantial delight, a movement is already coalescing to impeach President-Elect Obama."
I find that this election has revealed everyone's idolatry. Many of those on the left whose criticism of Bush's policies I appreciated are now praising Obama, even though he will do the same as Bush and worse. On the other hand, those Christians with whom I am joined, fear and criticize Obama, even though he will do the same as Bush and more. The whole country is involved in saint worship, principles and reality mean nothing. I love the expression Chris Floyd has coined, "WIBDI", What if Bush did it? He applied it to the left, it holds just as true for the right.
I agree mentally that Obama will be worse than Bush, but in my gut, I had the feeling that a McCain presidency would have been worse than either.
American Christians are in great danger. If they oppose Obama for the wrong reasons, they may well turn for political help in the wrong direction. I had thought that an Obama presidency would be weaker over time simply because conservative Christians would have opposed him. Suddenly, I have the sense that those who pull the strings understand American Christians very well and will, like Foxy Loxy, use Obama to run them right into the trap they have set.
I so appreciate those Internet writers, including William Grigg, who argue from principles against any abuse of power whether from left or right. On the other hand, when I come across those who rail against Obama, but said nothing about Bush/McCain, it leaves a sick feeling in my heart. They reveal how little they understand about reality.
... but tell us how you really feel Mr. Grigg.
BTW, they can't have my brownies. I'm stuffing them all in my mouth right now!
Ah, the pendulum swings back. It is refreshing to be able to agree with my Republican friends again, after so many years of loathing Bush while they worshiped him, and so many months of fearing McCain while they prayed for his victory (ftr, I hate it when people rail against "single-issue" voters, but at the same time, when so many people I know voted for McCain solely under the (false) assumption that he would do something to curtail abortion, I get frustrated). Now, instead of admonishing my liberal friends to recall Clinton's atrocities whenever they attempt to impugn Bush, I get to admonish my conservative friends about Bush, when they impugn Obama.
Orwell was wrong, you can't convince an entire nation to forget history at the drop of a hat... but you can convince half of it to forget every few years.
It's a good thing God loves us and wants us to be happy, because without Him, and the beer he has given us as proof of his love, I would have a hard time stomaching this election. But with beer and a good ol' hurtin' song, I think I'll survive.
I thought this country was wicked enough when we have to pass legislation to define marriage, now I know it's worse than wicked, it's an obamanation.
Great aritcle, but I have to disagree. I don't believe that Obama can be worse than Bush. Bush has destroyed us financially (or allowed the destruction), he has brought perpetual war upon us, he has expanded government's redistribution programs, he has permanently damaged many of our important liberties - what's worse - he has done it all in the name of conservativism and capitalism. At least when Obama destroys us it will be in the name of socialism. I just hope that four years from now the American people will want to move towards laissez faire. However, I am a realist and so I am stocking up on my food supply anyway.
Britney Spears was more qualified as a child when on the Mickey Mouse club show than George W. Bush ever was.
I voted for George W. Bush the first time. We all make mistakes. Prior to that I would only vote Republican.
My reasons to tirelessly pursue George W. Bush, seeing that he is legally prosecuted as a drug dealer and murderer [found here].
I know so little about Obama, I really don't have an opinion formulated on him yet. Osama Bin Laden as US President the last 8 years probably would have been able to do less damage to America's economy and reputation than George W. Bush has. Bin Laden would not have had the cooperation of a nation of mostly pathetic sheep.
-Steven G. Erickson
Speaking of brownies, for the past eight years I've been consuming batch after batch of my "special recipe" confections in order to numb my brain and escape this ugly dystopian reality. What's that? Run that by me again. Who just got elected? C'mon, man; slow it down. Who? A..bama? O..ba..ma? Another statist you say? Like don't do this to me again, man. Wha? A Marxist?! Really?! O' wow, man. It looks like I'll be "baking" for another four years or more.
"...when that country went through five presidents in less than a year. Governmental paralysis would ensue, with legislation lingering unsigned, executive appointments left unmade, and "rogue" nations left un-bombed..."
This is my only hope.
For the first time on this blog, I have to disagree with you. How do you know what will happen in the next 4 years? How do you know what is deep in the heart of Obama, which he may want to say but cannot? You do not know, and neither do I. But if I was able to predict the future with as much certainty as you, I would select six good numbers next week, win the lottery, and retire from the workforce. If you are such a fine prophet, how about telling me next week's numbers?
Once upon a time, I was a brainwashed acolyte of Dick de Vos' Amway. At one of their 99.95% white, mayonnaise-on-white-bread, rah-rah mettings in 1992, in between the slides of the Hummers and the yachts and private golf courses that all those ultra-white, ultra-Republican Amway people owned, someone put up a huge slide of a highway sign somewhere in North Carolina, which evidently was located somewhere between the towns of Clinton and Prosperity. The sign showed "Clinton" with an arrow pointing one way, and "Prosperity" with an arrow pointing the other way. It was greeted with thunderous applause and howls of derisive laughter.
Yet, I am sure that by 2000, with the lowest unemployment in 50 years, budget surpluses for 3 years running, the smallest Federal workforce in 30 years, a booming stock market, and more, the only attendee at that meeting who chose to recall the enthusiasm with which that highway sign was received was myself.
(Kind of like the older Germans, none of whom today can remeber ever having supported Hitler.)
Now, after 8 years of wanton destruction of our economy, our world prestige, our military power, and our Constitution, by the Republicans, [and yes, they were ALL responsible - every time anyone dared to criticise Bush's baldfaced lies or evil, vile actions, there would be a Greek chorus of howls from every Republican throat - howls of "Traitor!! Un-American!! Support our Dear Leader In Times of a War Of His Own Choosing!!"] now that Obama has come onstage, all I hear are dire predictions of how it will be even worse under Obama.
How do you know? Will - are you a closet Amway salesperson?!!?? Is that really a photo of you on your blog? OR are you really blond and white with three SUV's in the garage, none of which gets more than 4 miles to the gallon? And all of which have made-in-China yellow ribbon magnets saying "Support our troops?" Ah, so, dear Will, we have found you out!!
Personally, I will wait and see. I will also wait and see how many tens of millions Obama has in his bank account five years after he retires from the Presidency. (If the media and the oligarchs who own it do not incite someone to assassinate him first. God help us all if they do.) Both Bushes, and the Clintons, have become enormously wealthy from their connections and deals while in office. The African dictators you mention have also done or did the same, but I am disappointed to read you tarring Obama with that brush. You of all people.
There is a whole huge essay here, but I do not have time or space to get into it. I would need to analyze the origins of fiat money, the power elite, why the power elite assassinated Kennedy for interfering with their business, who knew, such as Johnson, and who was afraid of them, such as Johnson, thus who it is that Obama has pitted himself against, his chances of success, why he has done it, the propaganda organs and the methods of divide and conquer of the power elite, the madness of crowds (a book by Gustave Le Bon) and the global balance of power and wealth.
The public knows little of what is happening. A small example: the hostile posturings of President Medvedev and his threats to station missiles on the borders of Poland are purely Act One, setting a propaganda stage for public consumption. The real intention is to co-operate and make friends with Obama and the USA, but in order that it should not seem to have happened too easily, the first act consists of a great waving of swords and posturing in battle array. Pay no attention to it. Under Obama, the USA will become once again friends with Russia, as Ronald Reagan left it when he retired from office. This is the Russian intention - unless Obama blows it, under the influence of all the Jews he is surrounding himself with. (There is no love lost between Russia and the Jews.)
For the very first time since I became an American citizen in 2006, on November 4 I found myself truly proud to be an American. What I saw that night was a revolution - a most remarkable one for being bloodless - in which We The People rose up and seized power back from the power elite who have held it for so long. The vast crowd you saw in Chicago was the new followers of Spartacus, the new followers of Toussaint L'Ouverture, who had thrown off the yoke of slavery, and were celebrating a taste of freedom.
It remains to be seen if the power elite will allow this to stand - I truly fear not, and have heard many others express the same fears - or whether we are in for a brutal suppression of the revolution. In the case of Rome, it took the form of a military victory by the powers, the killing of Spartacus, and restoration of slavery. In the case of Haiti, it took the form of an economic destruction which rendered Haiti today the poorest nation in this hemisphere. Read the history of Haiti - no capitalist nation, including this one, fearing the spread of slave revolt to their own shores, would trade with or even recognize Haiti as a nation.
The power of the oligarchs is not limited to America - it is global. They can do as they please - they can assassinate Presidents, Popes, and UN Secretaries-General at will, with perfect impunity. If they decide to destroy us, they can.
I believe the reason Obama has decided not to pursue the criminals who have ruled us for eight years is that he recognizes that their methods were to divide and conquer, and he needs to do something different. He has to reform them and bring them and their followers on board as part of the new society. This cannot be done by attacking them. Study South Africa. If Mandela and Tutu had followed the usual course of punishment of the former criminal rulers, the country would have fractured apart. Martin Luther King said it very eloquently: "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend."
Will, Andy Rooney is the world's premier curmudgeon. Do not try to better his expertise in that area. If you need something besides windmills at which to tilt, I suggest going after the oligarchs who brought us to where we are now. They have not gone away, even though they may have gone quiet for a while as they lick their wounds. We should be very afraid of them. Rome will not let the slave revolt succeed without a bitter fight. Your voice is needed now more than ever, to sound the tocsin and ride through the night like Paul Revere, crying, "The oligarchs are coming! The oligarchs are coming!"
This whole discussion puts me in mind of a certain quotation with which you may be familiar, from a group of people of great moral certitude, who did not wish to inform themselves of the facts or of the truth, neither to be informed thereof:
"Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Man may have walked on the moon, but evidently human nature has not changed greatly in 2,000 years.
Oh well, I console myself and fortify my soul with another quotation from the subject of the last quotation:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father....Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."
And finally, a very sobering thought, from someone else connected with the same quotee:
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
just checkin' in
Doc Ellis 124
stock up on your "assault weapons" His holiness thinks only he and his goons should have them.
I had to double check after reading this article - Obama said that McCain would call him a communist for sharing his "toys" in kindergarten. Did he mention brownies?!
"he may very well become America's second president-for-life, following the course set by FDR before he died and went to hell."
"Hell", as in "What the -" I surely never thought I'd see a comment like that from a Christian. It reflects both presumption and envy. It was a bad thing to say, but a worse thing to mean.
I wonder if ACORN will subsequently be converted into the new American Sturmabteilung--or SchutzStaffel.
Lots of people said that it couldn't get worse during the rise of fascism under leaders such as Mussolini. It did, and those leaders were dedicated to destroying every institution they didn't control. Bush didn't destroy the press; it just got worse and more concentrated - but they didn't smash the Internet. Obama's regime will probably bring hate legislation, fairness doctrines, and Internet regulation.
Below is the link for the official "transition" website for Obama/Biden. This link will take you to the "ideas" page where Americans are urged to send in their thoughts and ideas.
I urge everyone to thoroughly review this website (every page) as well as continuing to check it often!
Whats really frightening about the redistributionist rhetoric is how the commenters on that Norman Soloman article in truthout (that you referenced) jumped on the communist bandwagon in hearty agreement.
Since we are all entitled to our opinions, mine is: Lemuel Gulliver is annoying, and needs to acquaint himself with Romans 12:3.
nice to see you.
i'm sorry, but that went to hell line was funny. now i 'm sure will has no proof that FDR went to hell, but would these offenses land you in hell: murder (pearl harbor attack which he instigated and then let transpire); adultery (he was cheating on his wife); theft (first the gold, then the public treasury); the wrongful incarceration of japanese, and his critics; and of course forcing millions of americans into slave labor--conscription. i probably missed some, too. i, as a Christian, will say it to...FDR probably went to hell, hitler probably went to hell, j edgar hoover.......probably went to hell. and my laptop's poorly designed keyboard that whenever i typed, the cursor jumped all over the place and it got so bad i am now permanently using a french keyboard? yes, my laptop's keyboard can go to hell. i presume it will, and i mean that. :-)
no one knows everything. neither i, you, nor will. your comments about whether that picture is will reflects...a lack of maturity on your part. even if you were being sarcastic you only put it in there so as to complete your amway joke.
all you had to do was google his name and look for some images.
i will close this out by how will may have come to the conclusion that he did (i shall use scripture since you can refute me all day, but you cannot refute God):
Matt 12:34-35 "...out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil of his heart bringeth forth evil things."
Obama has advocated thievery (social programs and wealth distribution), slavery (forced national service), and murder (war with iran). and this list does not include what he has already done.
"And he [Jesus] said unto the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and the earth; but how is that ye do not discern this time?"
my god, man, why is it that you are looking for signs when you've been given several?
and one last thing, God is in control, not the oligarchs, nor anyone else. they can do nothing without his permission. if you really want change, i mean REALLY want change? try praying. unlike a vote, a fervent prayer always gets counted. "the heart of the king is in the hands of...?"
McCain gets the GOP nomination. Meanwhile, primary candidates like Buchanan (92 and 00--before switching to the Reform Party) and Paul (08) went nowhere.
The old America has voted itself out of existence. It isn't coming back--ever. We have passed the point where that can be considered a credible possibility.
From Post-American America.
Yes, it's time to trash the idea of negative liberties and have government provide officially recognized victim classes all the plunder they desire. Substitute victim classes with privileged corporations and you have the Republican agenda - the flip side of the same coin.
dave: "Hell", as in "What the -" I surely never thought I'd see a comment like that from a Christian.
Yes, dave, folk who refuse the free gift of salvation from Jesus Christ and allow Him (through the work of the Holy Spirit) to institute a renewing of their mind are destined for Hell. But, obviously, we as humanoids know not for certain whether FDR nor, for that matter, whether, say, our own neighbor who passed on last week went to Heaven or Hell, because we can't completely read the heart of other people.
However, lifestyles and the way people operate (conduct themselves, behave, speak, etc.) on a regular basis, logically, says a lot about where their heart really is. No surprise there.
rick: FDR probably went to hell, hitler probably went to hell, j edgar hoover.......probably went to hell.
Yes, unfortunately, the stereotypical image of those destined for Hell is seemingly always constrained to those who have done heinous wrongs beyond what the average Joe/Jane Sixpack manages in his/her uneventful life.
Yet, the reality is that simple acceptance/rejection of Christ's death on the cross and later resurrection as payment for ones sins is what determines ones eternal destiny. Those who reject the gift are hell-bound, while those who earnestly accept it are heaven-bound.
IOW, many of those who never steal a dime, murder a soul, or rape a soul, or other heinously evil act will, like the merry ol' rich man, nevertheless go to Hell. While some, like Paul, a former self-confessed murderer, become great servant saints and go to Heaven when death arrives. "Ouch! that hurt my feeling of self-righteousness."
Glad to help knock one down a notch or three...
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Ron Paul, speaking on the Alex Jones show, thinks the election of Obama will be a helpful catalyst towards the elitists' ultimate goal of world [socialist] government. As if I had to place that modifier in there, but commoners by and large are wont to think (hmm, no, that's an oxymoron), or rather, assume, anything.
After all, we certainly didn't think we're on our way to a world republican government now did we? No, of course not! At least I assume most of US who come here anyway. Commoners are really (yes, REALLY!) ignorant and/or stupid, given the decades-running socialist education the vast mass receive from toddlerhood through college.
Ergo, naturally, Paul's warning is not really a bona fide revelation to those who possess a modicum of insight. Given the fact the people at large are essentially amoral, I guess I shouldn't be all that shocked at how the vulgar class, some of whom even see their mortgages and gas being paid by the Redeemer himself (oh Lawd Obama, how generous he be!), views the Magic Negro as a form of idol to worship. So many seem enamored with the words "hope," "change," and the personage of Barack Obama.
It's also evident from one particular comment above that you eventually will force one to bring his/her true colors to bear when you begin to deconstruct the personage who manifestly represents their philosophy and see the same reaction come forth that they so heartily lambasted the "other side" about. It's all so predictable...yawn. Newsflash! Bushsky, Marx of Cain, and Baracko Obamalini are only superficially different vines that sprout from the same weed root (totalitarianism). It's a controlled dialectic, Mr. Gulliver.
As I mentioned in a previous comment thread, Will, most people only opposed the bailout because it was destined for greedy Wall Street richies. Had it been for greedy commoner boys and girls, there'd have been a shout of joy and screams of delight. Even so, I think Lawd Obama is even considering his own version of a stimulus check to shower the hapless commoner herds with. Let's see how much of an outcry we hear. Bleh...don't hold your breath. The commoners don't oppose subsidies outright, only subsidies to certain parties.
Will, I can't wait until you start verbally defacing the Obamist Regime just as heartily as you do/did the Bushevik Regime. Of course, we have to await his coronation, but it ought to be fun! I detest all totalitarian -isms, whatever their makeshift labels: Islamo-Leninism, Islamo-fascism, Ecclesio-Leninism, Lavender-Leninism, eco-nazism, femi-fascism, watermelon Leninism, Red statism, Blue statism, Magenta statism, etc., etc.
rick: if you really want change, i mean REALLY want change? try praying. unlike a vote, a fervent prayer always gets counted. "the heart of the king is in the hands of...?"
Lastly, I agree with rick. We need to be prayin', not only for friends and family, but for enemies and for ALL those in positions of authority over us, including Lawd Obama, come his coronation upon the cherry-blossom throne Jan. 20. It's hard to contemplate that at this stage, at least for me, but we need to do it anyway. You know, like we do with Bush in office, and Clinton before him, and so on? Hmm, uh, yeah. Anyway, as for me, I've been seriously slackin' in this regard, particularly concerning praying for my enemies and those in positions of authority at all levels for a long time.
Dixie dog - you are one of my favorite commentators to this blog. As a brother in Christ I appreciate your sharp insights and admonishments. Iron truly sharpens iron.
you ain't the only one whose been slackin in that area--prayer. i'm still askin calgon to take me away.
re:The commoners don't oppose subsidies outright, only subsidies to certain parties.
The ongoing prejudice against "commoners" never fails to amaze me!
Contrary to the cherished urban myths - there are actually "vast hordes of commoners" - including "financially struggling and desperate commoners" - who DO NOT want or accept subsidies.
For those government hand-outs (large or small) are in NO WAY "free".
The price paid in the real world for this government "generosity" is steep and long lasting.
It is our freedom.
MANY commoners today are choosing literal hunger, rather than government help.
Including many commoners - who lost their livelihoods - not due to laziness or a lack of responsibility - but as a DIRECT RESULT of the actions of "their" government.
Many commoners would however, like the return of a constitutionally limited and less intrusive government and society - so, that our ongoing efforts to support ourselves and raise our families - weren't being constantly crippled and undermined.
The educated and/or powerful constantly offering up "the commoner" for sacrifice on the alter of "public" opinion/blame - and having it WORK - each and every time - as though this were something new and factual - has gotten far past TIRESOME.
"Commoners" have NOT caused this mess.
The rich and the powerful - playing countries, governments, industries and people - as though they were merely inanimate pieces in some virtual corporate board game - have!
And now they are coming for our 401k. Ahh.. and the ignorant among us still prattle on about us still being a free nation. I remember reading about the crisis that Argentina faced in the early 2000's never really believing that day would arrive here ..well it has. Lunacy Reigns!!!!!
I truly cannot believe there are people that believe Obambi is "one of us" This man has been groomed from early adulthood for this new position. Just look at his background for goodness sake. Truth be told he has his head so far up David Rockefeller's @#$ that it looks like the man is walking around with four legs.
"Commoners are really (yes, REALLY!) ignorant and/or stupid, given the decades-running socialist education the vast mass receive from toddlerhood through college."
There's no doubt public schooling has ravaged the Christian mind. My wife and I received a very unpleasant reminder of that fact this morning in church, where a guest pastor delivered a purported sermon on Proverbs 31. It was a rambling mess from a disorganized mind, replete with irrelevant personal anecdotes and feeble attempts at humor. The constant meanderings and confessions of ignorance ("Now I really don't know the first thing about...") reminded us of a babbling teenage girl. The women in the congregation loved it, giggling in affirmation. The men sat there and took it with bovine resignation. A friend sitting next to me (a cultured, educated brother) finally closed his Bible and spend the last ten minutes examining his fingernails. The Word was being mostly ignored anyway.
We're impatient for our regular pastor to get back from a mission trip to Sudan. Whenever he leaves, his temporary replacements are almost always anti-intellectual hacks who talk to the congregation as though we are stupid children. Next time he leaves, we're going to find out how long he'll be away, so we can find a place to be spiritually fed in the meantime.
What do you think of this? (please comment)
Here is how you steal an election:
Steal the disabled people's votes:
Recruit the stupid people who vote based on skin color alone:
The incomparable Paul Craig Roberts has also restated the obvious in his latest missive (here: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/081109_conned.htm, among other places). Obama's choice of White House CoS says it all. The operative acronym for the next four to eight years (and beyond) is MOSS (More of the Same S***).
America's greatest hope is the
total abject collapse of the
Even the Chinese are beginning to worry.
In this regard, Obama is just the ticket.
Dear Mr. Spock @ 4:54 pm,
1 Corinthians 3 - 5.
Rick @ 5:00 pm,
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate your criticisms instead of just dropping cryptic Bible verse numbers.
Of course I was trying to be funny! Will knows me and I know him - he is a gentleman and a scholar and a true American patriot of the highest order, and I have nothing but respect for him, and for his graciousness and poise in carrying on with so much courage in the face of life circumstances that would drive most of us to despair.
Do you really think that me dropping a quip like "tarring Obama with the same brush" was done unintentionally out of some Freudian racial prejudice? Will is familiar with my mouth, and I think he knows I don't make slips of the keyboard. It was meant lightheartedly.
We only tease those for whom we have respect and affection.
I was born and grew up in a country where my white skin was only 5% of the population. 45% were from Africa, and 50% were from the Indian subcontinent. I have visited at least 40 countries, spending up to 6 months in each. This is just to illustrate for you that I long, long ago abandoned any sort of racial or religious or any other prejudice. I am sorry that you think that "out of the evil of my heart I bring forth evil things."
I do not, however, understand how you can call Obama a thief, and at the same time ignore the fact that from 1776 till 1913, there was virtually no inflation in America, but that since 1913 the dollar has lost 98% of its value. A loaf of bread which cost 5 cents in 1913 now costs $2.50. Do you not realize that in 30 years, due to inflation, your wages and those of every working American have not gone up one cent? Meanwhile, the riches of the people who print and inflate the money supply have risen enormously? And that they have stolen from you, your children, and your grandchildren, who will be paying for the next 100 years to get this country out of debt? And that now, as a grand finale to the eight years of grand theft nation that have gone on under BushCo, they are stealing by the trillions - the trillions!! - and calling it "bailouts" for the same thieves who have robbed this once-great nation into the poorhouse.
Jesus said: "You strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel."
You have been robbed blind. Literally. You cannot even see it. The knife inserted between your ribs was so sharp and deadly you did not even feel it, even as your lifeblood drained into the fleshpots of those oligarchs.
And because Obama wants to restore some of your stolen wealth to YOU, you call him a thief. Friend, you are a very unfortunate dupe, who apparently believes everything the media tell you, not realizing that the media are the propaganda organs of the elite and the oligarchs. You think the news you see is real? The anchorpersons are chosen for their acting ability - their ability to read from a teleprompter and make it sound as if they mean and believe what they are saying. They are whores working for a pimp like any other whore.
Do not fall for it.
There is so much that goes on that you do not know, and nobody in America knows. The control of the media and shaping of public opinion by the government and the corporations is so complete and so pervasive, you would be staggered. It takes work and diligence to find out the truth, and most people are too busy, or have been indoctrinated not to care, even when it means their own lives and those of their children.
You may swear at me, call me a fool and a liar, and quote the Bible at me till the cows come home, it is all meaningless to me.
Did Jesus condemn the crowd which shouted, "Crucify him!"? No, His response was, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." With an example like that to follow, none of us should condemn what our fellows do out of ignorance.
I hope you will try to cultivate a little more healthy skepticism and will not accept everything you read and are told, even by me. Learn to think and evaluate for yourself. That's why God gave us humans such marvelous brains - so we could use them.
Ah, the common "I know I lost this and want to have the last word" passage. Right there with Romans 1:20.
- Beloved of the King
America's greatest hope is the
total abject collapse of the
Even the Chinese are beginning to worry.
Indeed. Public statements by media proxies of China's Central Bank to the effect that the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency is soon to be a thing of the past should be sending shockwaves through the body public. Should China (in unison with all of our other international creditors) abruptly cease purchase of U.S. treasury debt in the immediate future, the game will be all over, with ugly consequences for the average U.S. household. This day is certainly closer at hand than anyone wants to imagine. I, for one, cannot understand why the rest of the world has subsidized our fiscal recklessness for as long as it has, save perhaps for the prospect of seeing us suffer humiliating national bankruptcy and foreclosure upon tangible assets, including real estate.
Thought this was worth reading:
Don't know about the rest of you but, it seems to me, a good time to start reviewing the "basics" about "types" of government.
Am hoping some of you might want to pitch in any good links you have for this also.
The links below cover "the basics" and make a good beginning for understanding concepts we'd all do well to keep CLEARLY in mind.
Then compare the above concepts to:
Thought the "none" listed next to the United States in this one was interesting:
Curious and curiouser, thought Alice . . .
When I did a Wikipedia Search for Democratic Republic it showed 0 entries.
When I followed a link "democratic republic" found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government)
the page had been deleted.
Well hey, Federal shows up:
As does Federal Republic:
On the page at the link above:In the column "Type" "none" is again listed for the United States.
Anyhow, I thought it would be a nice tribute to our Veterans (considering the personal sacrifices they have made to defend and protect us) to spend a few hours reviewing what "defines" us as a country.
What we ARE and what we ARE NOT.
These were helpful to me also:
Will? You are so eloquent. Could you perhaps help with this?
Ooops! That 2nd link doesn't work.
Sorry. I don't really know how to do the mechanics of all this yet.
If you cut and paste the three lines below (making sure you don't get a space in there)it should work.
Again, I must point you in the direction of Unqualified Reservations, where the... eccentric author has, among other things, given a fairly convincing explanation of why Democrats sound so much like post-millenialist protestants (in short, they are, but they've given up belief in God so they can pass off their religion as objective knowledge). You will surely not agree with much of what the man has to say, but this is part of what makes the world interesting.
I'm curious if you have any insight into why the Democrats aren't pursuing Republican abuses in information gathering more vigorously. The abuses are egregious; surely they aren't so completely bereft of character that they would allow such blatantly unconstitutional behavior to continue so that they might gain from it later.
I jest, of course.
But really, it's a little eerie that there isn't more noise about this.
When faced with a daunting issue - the key question is of course: "What would Obama do?"
====== NOT FOR PUBLICATION ======
I think I will drop out of sight for a while, unless you come up with some really provocative issue that I just HAVE to put in my two cents on. (I know how weak my own willpower is, you see.)
It is such a waste of breath talking with religious people, who seem to have started hovering around your blog in some numbers, like unhappy ghouls. (I could use less flattering similes but am prompted to be kind to the poor souls.)
It is such a pity. They have been indoctrinated from childhood to "listen to their elders" and not to think or feel for themselves. Their precious Bible is so much more marvelous than they can even realize, because their hearts are closed up and imprisoned by their closed minds.
I was fortunate to grow up in a British educational system, and to have wonderful parents who treated me with respect, and not as a foolish child to be made to shut up and not ask questions. I taught myself to read at the age of 3, since, being the youngest by 3 years and both parents being out working, there was nobody to read stories to me. By 10 I was reading Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Again fortunately, the public libraries did not have "kids only" and "adults only" sections - I could take out anything I wanted to read.
Later, I met people who revealed to me the secrets of what life is all about. Not that I deserved it - I just got lucky. I can only suppose that I must have a very fine and caring guardian angel watching over me. I have led a very obscure and unimportant life, but when I tell others about it, they sit entranced and tell me I should put it all down in a book. It has been wonderful beyond words.
I do not have the time or energy to try to reach the minds of people who have unfortunately been told to accept whatever a "person in authority" tells them. Myself, I have no position of authority, would not want one, and despise authority - how one human being can think they know better than another how the other should lead their own life, and can feel justified in compelling them to do so, is puzzling to say the least.
Even George Bush. If people knew the horrors of his childhood as the son of that monstrous mother of his, they might be more charitable. Had he not tried and succeeded to become the President, he would have been an object of pity, instead of hatred. Without question, he is an evil, greedy, warped, and coldly sadistic creature, who has been the cheerleader for a whole crew of similarly evil Republicans, and has done immense damage to millions or hundreds of millions of people.
But life is funny. There are probably millions of people just as warped and vicious as him, but they never get to affect more than the immediate circle of their own family and acquaintances. (Unless, like Barbara Bush, they give birth to someone whose destiny is to affect millions.)
And there are probably millions of people just as kind and holy and good as the Pope or Mother Teresa, but they toil in obscurity as gardeners, busboys, or plain simple fathers such as yourself.
How many Einsteins have lived and died in poverty in villages in Africa or Asia, without ever having the educational opportunity to discover the laws of the universe and lift the human race from its present ignorance?
The huge waste of human talent in this world is beyond imagining.
Life is a wonderful and precious gift. We fail miserably to understand the sanctity of life. Life is God, is Love. God is Love, is Life. There is a marvelous line from the Lebanese writer Mikhail Naimy, who is far better than his well known compatriot Khalil Gibran. In his book "The Book Of Mirdad," he writes:
"We Live, that we may learn to Love. We Love, that we may learn to Live."
How can one possibly get such a simple and profound message through to people who are so proud of how many Biblical passages they can quote in any given situation? Who gives a damn about their book learning? What does quoting the Bible have to do with really living? What does it have to do with loving? What does it have to do with God?
If God should reveal even one percent of Himself to us, we would be struck dumb, unable to describe that experience. Nor would we want to. It is what Jesus meant when he cautioned us, "Throw not your pearls before swine." No one of us can save the soul of another. Nor should we try. That is God's work, and we should leave it to God to bring light into the darkness of other people's souls.
(Are you listening, Self?)
So, dear Will, thank you for all your efforts and your crusades on behalf of justice and Godliness. I commend you and pray that God strengthens your writing arm and keeps your pen sharpened for you. Only one piece of advice, if I may humbly offer it: Never neglect your lovely wife and beautiful children in the effort to enlighten the rest of the world. They are the most precious gifts you have been given. They are the little sheep and the talents entrusted to your care by the Good Shepherd, which you must multiply and make to yield love and more love, tenfold and a hundredfold, with His help.
Good luck, and happy adventures.
Or " ask not what Obama can do for you but what you can do for Obama."
I am beginning to really loathe him and the cult of personality that surrounds him - and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet
My slogan for the current sordid state of affairs:
Populus vult decipi ergo decipiatur
Post a Comment