The Obama Version Of The Hammer & Sickle?

Loading

It get’s tiresome to say this but worth noting everytime. Imagine if Bush had decided to brand this cultish logo onto government projects?

And whats up with all this iconography so eerily similiar to the old Soviet way of doing things?

Put a stamp on it — that’s what the White House says.

President Obama announced today that his administration will begin stamping an emblem on projects funded by the economic stimulus package so that people can easily recognize the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

All projects will be stamped with the ARRA logo (short for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and lists the recovery.gov website on the emblem.

In remarks at the Department of Transportation this morning, Mr. Obama referenced the new emblems.

“We’re also making it easier for Americans to see what projects are being funded with their money as part of our recovery. So in the weeks to come, the signs denoting these projects are going to bear the new emblem of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama said. “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people — a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. So when you see them on projects that your tax dollars made possible, let it be a reminder that our government — your government — is doing its part to put the economy back on the road of recovery.”

Are we going back to the days of the Blue Eagle? From Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning:

nra_eagle_we_do_our_part.jpg

At every opportunity, [Hugh] Johnson claimed that th war on the Depression was indistinguishable from battle. “This is war – lethal and more menacing then any other crisis in our history.” he wrote. No sphere of life was out of bounds for the new service. “It is women in homes – and not soldiers in uniform – who will this time save our country.” he announced. “they will go over the top to as great a victory as the Argonne. It is zero hour for housewives. Their battle cry is ‘Buy now under the Blue Eagle!”

The Blue Eagle was the patriotic symbol of compliance that all companies were expected to hang from their door, along with the motto “We do our part,” a phrase used by the administration the way the Germans used “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.” Now largely airbrused from popular awareness, the stylized Indian eagle clutching a band of lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial cogwheel in the other was often compared to the swastika or the German Reich eagle in both American and German newspapers. Johnson demanded that compliance with the Blue Eagle program be monitored by an army of quasi-official informants, from union members to Boy Scouts. His totalitarian approach was unmistakable. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird.”

It’s difficult to exaggerate the propagandistic importance FDR invested in the Blue Eagle. “In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure their comrades do no fire on comrades,” the president explained. “On that principal those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance.”

Getting creepy I tell ya.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Don’t you see? Twenty years from now, we’ll be able to see this new emblem all across highways and bridges, buildings and playgrounds, and on the business cards and/or uniforms of the 3 to 4 million temporary job holders still holding government “they’re real, not make-work” jobs.

Forget “Illinois – The Land of Lincoln”; it’ll be “America – the Home of Our Savior Obama”.

Jeff V

It’s just an homage to our dear leader. All hail Obama!

Not that NRA … Liberals must think everyone is as stupid as an Obama voter.

When Castro launched the revolution in Cuba, the Cubans who wanted to be free escaped to America. Where are WE going to go?

The mark of the beast.

LOL! I’m actually surprised Obama’s not planning on replacing the Eagle as the nation’s iconic national symbol with a phoenix rising from the ashes… honoring himself as the nation’s savior.

But then, you need to remember… Obama’s big on “symbols”. Going back to an Aug 2008 HotAir post by Ed Morrissey.. part of the Team Obama’s PA campaign BS.

obama-buyamerican

According to an Obama aide, the new effort dovetails with a renewed push by the Obama team in Pennsylvania to poke fun at John McCain’s recent claim that he would rather hear the roar of “50,000 Harleys” than the cheering of 200,000 Berliners.

As the Obama camp was quick to point out, McCain opposed legislation that would have forced the U.S. government to buy American-made motorcycles.

Then, of course, there is the “O” logo that’s been in our faces for over a year.

I picked this particular gif off the site of one of the O’faithful who thought the logo was a stroke of genius: saying

The O represents Obama and he can use the logo without his name next to it. He’s claiming the O as George W. Bush claimed the W

The blue O and the red stripes represent the flag

The red stripes represent the plains, the American farmland

The O’s whitespace represents the sun, shining over the plains. Because it’s white, it evokes sunrise, not sunset.

Then again, the Obama “O” is better interpreted by most of us as the “big zero”. BTW, wonder what happened to that stench-filled Obama campaign plane? Think it’s been sold on the consumer market as a “keepsake”??? (after fumigating, of course…)

Needless to say, Obama is “logo” crazy. But look at the bright side.

1: We’ll easily identify every losing proposition to the stimulus. It’s a dual edged sword.

2: He must keep graphic artists on staff (therefore, employed) – even if they have limited creative imaginations. And think of the rubber stamp industry that gets the biz….

Now here’s the weird bit…. But I didn’t archive the particular website.

When I was researching our dual post on the Caterpillar-stimulus-Obama road show, I was following Obama’s three day schedule that culminated in a keynote speech in Springfield for the Abraham Lincoln Association. He was invited by Dick “Turban head” Durbin to do so.

When I was checking timing, I found a schedule that I used (but didn’t archive) for the timing. What I noticed was that schedule website used a take off of the obama “O” logo… with the wavy lines, round orb, etal. I just thought that Obama ripped off the Lincoln Assocation logo. But when I check their official site, this is not the case.

I think we’re going to continue to see the Obama “brand” wavy lines/”o”/orb logo reappear in various forms over this administration. A visual brand that the advertising types (which Obama is faithful to for his success) will keep alive for the POTUS.

Welcome to to the marriage of politics and advertising in the US. Rather a throw back, as you say, to despotic regimes.

Creepy? Hell yes.

When Castro launched the revolution in Cuba, the Cubans who wanted to be free escaped to America. Where are WE going to go?

Joyce,
I have been asking that for months. Where do we go?

My mother’s family came here from Eastern Europe escaping the fascists there.

But, indeed, there is nowhere else to go.

Read about the “Blue Eagle” in Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”.

In fact, if you haven’t already, read the book. It’s eerie and scary at the same time, the past being prologue and all.

ARRRRGH! I missed it.

Sorry.

Still go read the book.

It does have a nicer appeal to the eye than the hammer and sickle though, you have to admit.

You are welcome at Missy’s Conservative Commune. We will fish a few fish, raise a few beef, grow a few veggies and not have to show our faces til it’s all over.

Missy, couldn’t think of a better companion to “hide out” with. And I’m going to assume you didnt marry a flaming liberal…. LOL I personally – shall treasure your gracious invite to the Conservative Commune until my demise, girl

Well, I, speaking for me, personally, have absolutely NO intention of going anywhere.

We began stocking up on food two years ago.

We have taken full advantage of the 2nd Amendment.

Part of my garden is already in the ground. The rest will be by March 15th. I am doing 3500 sq feet this year. My wife says I’m crazy. I tell her to buy more canning jars.

We have plenty of firewood cut, split, and stacked.

We’ve got some cash on hand, and add to that every week.

Things are fixin’ to get crazy bad in this country. Stuff is about to happen the likes of which we have never seen before.

So, even though I wasn’t invited to the Conservative Commune 🙁 I’m still gonna be OK.

are you two considering adoption, Aye? LOL

Well, we have three children already, including a 6′ 5″ 17 year old boy who eats like a horse, so I doubt adoption is in our future.

They grow so doggone fast, at this point I’m doing all I can to keep the three of them clothed and fed.

so I guess coming with my own wardrobe doesn’t sweeten the pot…. :0)

but since you have all that SF in food, I’d say that they can learn some valuable life’s lessons in learning to work the land for survival

Actually, you’re more than welcome to join us if you like. You may not like the high humidity of the sweltering Georgia summers, or the mosquitoes, but, other than that, it’s great here in sleepy, small town America.

You’re right about the life lessons. From the time they were old enough to help me in the garden they have been learning. I have promised them that they will never go hungry due to an inability to grow their own food. My grandparents, who lived the Depression first hand, taught those lessons to me. I’m passing them on.

You poor communist americans.
Come to china and russia, lands of the free.

Can’t wait for the “Little Blue Book” to come out(all the wise sayings of Obama)—soon all children will have to learn it by heart under threat of being taken from their non-patriotic parents and put into social child care, and all civil servants must have one copy by law and carry upon their person at all times.

All hail Obama, the great communist leader of Obamerica!!!!! Hail!!!! Hail!!!

I don’t think anyone really cares that much about a logo – it’s what it represents that matters. I presume you are all happy with all the US Flags & symbols and all the Republican symbols. In this case this represents the Stimulus package – so if you are against it then you’ll not going to be too keen on the symbol. Similar with the Brits not keen on seeing the EU flag slapped everyone – from flags, to bridges and car registration. As we are not keen on the EU we don’t want to see that symbol.

But to complain about Liberal Fascism and Socialism is a dance back and forth across the politcal spectrum. It seems somewhat simplistic to have Conservatism vs every other political persuasion lumped into one. No wonder you became confused over Saddam and Al Qaeda. One minute it’s all hysterical panic that the US is being taken over by Commies and the next you’re laughing that those who voted Democrat must be disappointed that Obama isn’t acting as left as you believed he promised. All sounds bi-polar to me.

I heard that Obama said he plans to have the railroads run on time, also build a giant highway called the Amerobann.

@GaffaUK: I agree on the notion of the symbol presence.

I like the eight stars: one for D.C., now that it’s getting its own Senators, and seven for the other seven states that only Obama traversed.

Makes sense to me.

Jeff V

This is a great thread, despite how creepy it all is. You guys and your plans are quite impressive. I find it amazing how fast we are spiraling downward, yet continue to be in awe of all who didn’t see this coming. There were so many clues.

My big family is really paying off, as well as all of those endless stories from my depression era parents. We have every profession covered, even a vet. Thanks to one of my sisters, she and BIL already built the escape house (after 911) with its own generator up on a mountain top close to Camp David. There are tons of fruit trees, gardens, and of course the grape arbors for making our own wine (my grandfather was a wine maker). It was built specifically for “self sufficiency” after 911. The intention was for the entire extended family located in PA, VA, DC & MD.

Most of all, we all kick butt in poker and pinochle so life in exile may not be so bad. We even make our own pasta! All are welcome; lots of room and the view is killer; two hours out of DC.

Joyce I too have thought of “the best place to go”, and just had this exact conversation this past weekend. We both concluded that we love America too much, and happy to go down with it, fighting the good fight until the end, however bad that may be. Besides, I couldn’t leave the rest of the people I love, knowing that everyone I care about wouldn’t go.

In my travels I’ve run across families from time to time that have “check out.” The reason is always to get the kids out of the American culture. I admit the ones I’ve met always appear much happier (so they tell me), in their simplicity.

If I DID want to move Joyce, first choice would probably be Costa Rica; 2nd choice Chile. I love Canada and Europe, but too many similar problems.

GaffaUK,

You very obviously have not read “Liberal Fascism”, and/or you were also thoroughly brainwashed in school. Consider that Mussolini was a rising star in the Italian Socialist party before he formed his own “brand” of socialism which he called Fascism. Then consider that “Nazi” is slang for National SOCIALIST. Then consider that both groups nationalized most industries in their respective countries.

For us to say that we oppose Liberal Fascism, AND Socialism, is not a “dance across the political spectrum”, it is merely repetitive. Fascism is indeed “right wing”, the Russian Communists considered them to be right wing Socialists.

Also, what “Republican symbols” are you talking about? If all you mean is the flag, then yes, I am quite happy with our national symbol which has a bit more validity and history than Obama’s crap.

Back on the campaign trail Obama decided to forego wearing an American flag lapel pin, he reasoned that it became a symbol of the Iraq war, that he had other ways of showing his patriotism.

Perhaps, unbeknownst to the public, he finally did acknowledge the success of the Iraq War, he began wearing it again later in his campaign.

Throughout his campaign he has introduced the public to a variety of symbols, all centered around one Barack Hussein Obama. Snippets of our country’s symbols, the eagle, colors, stripes, etc. are designed into his letter O, his symbol. His allegiance and patriotism is to himself.

Had President Bush used his W on an official letterhead there would have been a well deserved backlash, it shouldn’t be any different for the One.

@Lightbringer – Yep fortunately my history teacher at school wasn’t Jonah Goldberg. The political spectrum – also can have a different axis – from authoritarian to libertarian. Check out the Political Compass. So you can be a fascist and be on the left, centre and right. Hitler is ranked in the centre of the Right/Left scale according to that website. Whereas classic Liberalism and libertarians are at the polar opposite of Fascism – as it’s more concerned with individual rights and equality rather than state control. Whereas ‘social’ liberals are closer but not the same as socialists – they want a free market, don’t want nationalised businesses but they do want welfare state and redistribution of wealth. Neo Liberalism is the opposite of Communism – the belief in the free market. My concern is that conservatives (another word like liberalism that is pretty vague or at least abused) – band about liberals, socialists, fascists, communists as if they are the same thing. They are not. I consider myself a liberal because I believe largely in free trade, individual rights and freedoms. I don’t agree with authoritarianism nor nationalition. So how you get to being a Liberal Fascist is beyond me except when the right refers to those on the left who want significant/complete state controls to push their own left-wing agenda. But of course by doing so – they are by definition no longer Liberals.

Gaffa,

You would be what “they” call a traditional Liberal. You do have a valid point about how watered down and commonly misused all these labels have become. Your question about how a statist can be a liberal would be better directed at them, as they claimed that moniker themselves.

Your point about Conservatives “bandying” about “liberals”, “socialists”, “fascists”, and “communists” as if they were the same thing is somewhat weaker. It is true enough that they have slightly different methods, but their end goals are all pretty similar, more power to the state, less freedom to the individual. Serial killers may have different methods, but their victims still end up dead. Making distinctions between stranglers, shooters, and stabbers seems a bit beside the point. Are you saying that conservatives are somehow wrong to oppose big state authoritarians under one name simply because we already oppose big state authoritarians under a different name? Personally, I do not give a rat’s arse what they call themselves, I oppose them.

So we have a coca plant leaf in the left hand corner and gears that don’t mesh in the right hand corner and eight stars at top (I guess those are the last eight of the fifty eight states that Obama mentioned during the campaign). That gives me a whole lot of confidence that this team knows jack squat about what its doing. Or maybe the left hand side are two eyes and a tongue sticking out at the US taxpayers?

@Lightbringer

Are conservatives against Big Government?

Fiscal Policy

Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69% — on its way to today’s $2.3 trillion budget.

The annual average increase in government during Reagan’s administration was 6.8%, compared with “big government” Bill Clinton’s average annual increase of 3.6%.

Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term — and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.

Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term “Reaganomics” implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation’s annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Reagan'sLegacy.htm

+ at the end of his time Duyba was effectively buying up banks effectively nationalising them. His daddy famously broke his promise and raised new taxes.

And with ‘some’ conservatives if they are so keen to avoid authoritarian governments – being told what to do by a nanny state then why do they want to stop gay couples getting married, cannabis being legalized, women choosing whether not to have an abortion. And why are they keen to have more intrusive security measures prying into our lives? And US foreign policy is pretty authoritarian the way it pushes it own agenda across the globe.

@ MataHarley Re: the symbol

So will he one day be referred to as “the President formerly known as Obama”?

Gaffa-

Reagan- The main budget increases were defense spending, something the federal government is actually supposed to to be doing. I know it was not something that many people were aware of, but we had a little thing called the “Cold War” going on. As for the tax increases, your link leads to a “404 error”, but the key words are probably “he cooperated”. As in, “he cooperated with the overwhelmingly Democrat Congress”. Also, since I cannot check your source, I suspect that much of that “tax load” is actually increased government revenue. Meaning that the tax revenues went up %65, not that the taxpayer burden went up %65, seeing as how if you increased what Carter had us paying by %65 you would be approaching %100. I do not have time to dig up accurate info for you from a website that actually exists.

George Bush was hardly a paragon of conservative purity, but his bailouts do not come close to the brobdingnagian spending increases Obama is ramming through.

As for your examples of Conservative “oppression”… Gays have access to the same rights as married couples through civil unions, the whole debate is about the word “Marriage”. How oppressive. We do not prefer to encourage young people to screw up their lives smoking pot. How oppressive. We want to stop millions of innocent baby human beings from being murdered for their mother’s convenience. How oppressive. The government might listen in on you if you make an international phone call to a suspected terrorist. Wouldn’t want to oppress the next 9-11 attackers, now would we? As for foreign policy, kindly list for me the American colonies and territories in our aggressive and oppressive empire.

All your examples (except foreign policy) are actually examples of Democrats trying to change the status quo to force their own values onto a majority of people who do not wish them. So which side is the oppressor? I can easily list a dozen “Liberal” plans that are actively intrusive into personal freedom and destructive towards Constitutional rights. Sadly, that will have to await my return from work.

Conservatives are not perfect, but that is hardly a reason to just give up on the ideal and join or support the side that is actively working in the opposite direction.

@Lightbringer

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Reagan'sLegacy.htm

The Cold War started from 1945 – yet other President’s managed to spend high on military spending without running up such a deficit as Reagan did.

http://restoringsanity.org/military/spending.gif

And in regards to social liberties I didn’t use oppression but nevertheless it is still a nanny state when we can drink alcohol and smoke tobacco (which causes many thousands of deaths) but the state says we can’t smoke pot. There’s lots of ways to screw your life up. Shall we have the Government stop us doing sport, learning religion, driving etc? And why stop gays being married? How does that affect the ‘sanctity’ of marriage? It is because the Bible said so? Is it practical to force all women who fall pregnant, whether accidentally or by rape – to go through nine months of pregnancy? As for security measures -on the whole I think they are sadly necessary BUT they do need to be kept in check as an Orwellian state is always threat. As for foreign policy – I believe all nations like individuals are primarily selfish. The US has thrown its weight around and has interfered with democracies – e.g. Chile which goes against its own rhetoric.

By trying to keep hold onto the status quo – that can be authoritarian in itself. Look at Islamic countries – they use oppressive measures to keep their women in check. Now thankfully the US and the west are a million miles from that. The West is often referred to as liberal democracies and I like the fact that countries like the UK are now more secular and tolerant. Of course tolerance can go too far in the same way intolerance can go too far.

Of course Conservatives and Liberals aren’t perfect – and we do have to draw lines otherwise we are in anarchy if it’s everyone for themselves. But when Conservatives talk about the ills of big government (which I largely agree with) and the ills of having a Nanny State (again I agree with) I would actually like to see Conservative leaders actually practising what they preach without the usual excuses.

Gaffa-

HarryBrowne link is still “404”. Other Presidents may have spent on defense, but they did not have to pay the costs of repairing the Great Society and Jimmy Carter at the same time. They also did not run the Soviet Union into the ground.

Yes, there are many ways to screw up your life. Yes, some of them are legal already. Explain to me why this means we should encourage yet another form of screwing up. To use your sports analogy, I am not suggesting we outlaw sports. You are suggesting that we start a PSA campaign to encourage people not to wear pads or helmets.

Yes, it sure seems awfully mean to make all those women endure a full term pregnancy. It isn’t like they had any choice about having sex. It isn’t like they had any access to contraceptives.(/sarc) If you actually do some research, very few abortion opponents want rape victims forced to term. The main gist is to stop infanticide as a form of contraception.

To wrap up, Yes, it would be nice to see conservative politicians practicing what they preach. We aren’t going to see that if we keep electing hard core, big government socialists like Obama. Keep watching the United States, if you can’t tell the difference between what the Obama Democrats are doing to this country, and what even squishy conservatives do to it, then you are brain dead.

@Lightbrighter

Well wasn’t it Nixon who had the first opportunity to repair The Great Society?
Also I fail to see that if you legalise something that you are encouraging it? If you make something illegal then, it can be argued, that you are making more attractive. Because governments legalise alcohol I don’t see PSA campaigns encouraging it. So would you like to see alcohol banned?

And with women – would you ban the morning after pill, would make all abortion illegal except rape or if it endangered the life of the woman, would you and pregnant women travelling – all would you jail them if they returned from a foreign country having had an abortion? To stop unwanted pregnancies – what would you do? Would you make sex education in schools mandatory or just leave that to the parents and hope for the best? Would you encourage contraceptives or would you hope silver rings would do the trick of stop the young having unprotected sex?

As for the link – type in the link in google – and you’ll find it.

For your concern over big government it shows Reagan expanded the government by a bigger percentage than Clinton. So when you vote every time for a Republican it doesn’t mean you are going to get smaller government than the Democratic nominee. Let me guess – Reagan needed to expand bigger government to stop Carter & those pesky Ruskies…

Gaffa-

Nixon and Ford were pretty squishy, and fixing the Great Society with a Democrat controlled congress before it had a proper chance to display itself as a failure and as detrimental to poor people would have been nigh on impossible anyway.

Let me see if I can explain how legalizing something would encourage it. “Child A” has parents who spank him and send him to his room if he eats cookies before dinner. “Child B” has parents who smile and pat him on the head if he does the same, saying, “It is alright if you do not eat much dinner, because we said you could eat cookies anytime you want.” Which child do you think is more likely to eat cookies before dinner? The parents do not have to ask “Child B” if he wants the cookies. They do not have to hand him a cookie. They have removed the consequences of his irresponsible actions, leaving his hedonistic impulses with nothing but childish self discipline between him and unhealthy junk food.

The same circumstance exists in the abortion situation. Young women have had the natural consequences of their decisions about sex removed from the playing field. To tell you the truth, I feel that abortion, pot smoking, and all the rest of your little canards are properly decisions that should be left up to the States. You know, as the Constitution spells out in plain English. If California and other Progressive States wish to keep abortion legal, and make pot smoking that way, then so be it. Texas et al. should have the right to have different laws. If a teenage girl gets pregnant and decides to travel to a different state to get a legal abortion, then so be it. At least the difficulty of such an obstacle might make her think for one extra second before she made the original mistake. You should read about the Progressives and Eugenics. Your caring “abortion rights” are kissing cousins to Nazi Death camps.

That is the fallacy of all these “caring” and progressive societal programs and laws. They are presented under the illusion of helping the poor etc. In reality, they are the equivalent of parents who raise their children with no rules or constraints. It turns the “victims” into spoiled brats with no concept of self control, or how to actually earn something they want, dependent on the Nanny State for everything.

Let us see. Reagan expanded the military, Clinton gutted it. Reagan had a Democrat Congress, Clinton mostly had a strongly Conservative, Republican Congress. Yes, I can see how those factors would skew the % by which government grew under each President. What is your point? That because Republicans are imperfect and grow the government, that I should support Democrats who wish to grow the government twice as fast? That defense spending and security measures are somehow as evil as the welfare state and government control over the economy? That keeping more of my own money with less taxes is somehow even-Stephen with handing over most of my pay and begging for Uncle Sam to give me some back?

You are laboring under a bad case of “moral equivalency” transposed upon politics. According to the Constitution, the United States Government is obligated to defend the country. If they have to spend a trillion dollars or more to do that, well the price tag sucks, but they are doing their job. The United States Government is NOT supposed to be supporting more and more people by stealing money from one group of people and giving it to another group in exchange for votes. If they spend a trillion dollars doing that, then they are not doing their job. Not all government spending is the same, and excusing corrupt socialist enslavement programs by claiming that it is the same as spending on defense is like saying that rape is just another form of sex.

@Lightbringer

With the cookies. That’s the problem – if you treat people like children then what do you expect? That might work for children but I want the government smacking me if I choose to do certain ‘hedonistic’ things which have no or little impact on those around me. Again – why not ban alcholol – imagine all the lives you can save by those who drink drive? And would you ban smoking – again that claims lives. As does driving cars… how far do you go? Because 10% or less people have problems with certain issues – like gambling – then the 90% have to put up with bans etc.

And I doubt the majority of women have an abortion lightly. Hear about the 9 year girl from Brazil who was pregnant by twins by own her stepfather who raped here. Would you make face the consequences of her actions and force her to have the babies? Of course the good old Catholic Church was trying to prevent it. And as for Nazi Death Camps – that just hysteria and a poor comparision. Hitler was commiting genocide on a specific race.

And how do you answer the questions I posed earlier…

And with women – would you ban the morning after pill, would make all abortion illegal except rape or if it endangered the life of the woman, would you and pregnant women travelling – all would you jail them if they returned from a foreign country having had an abortion? To stop unwanted pregnancies – what would you do? Would you make sex education in schools mandatory or just leave that to the parents and hope for the best? Would you encourage contraceptives or would you hope silver rings would do the trick of stop the young having unprotected sex?

My problem with those who are strongly Republican is the same who are strongly Democratic. Normally it seems whatever candidate is picked you already have cast your vote. Would you really prefer one government for the last 300 years as led by all Republican leaders? Do you really believe the US would be better without democracy? Put it this way- in the UK – like the US – politics goes in cycles. Governments come and go – some are strong and some are weak – led by strong or weak leaders – pushed around by events. However it seems evident that governments who stay in power often become more arrogant, out of touch and run out of ideas. This happened at the end of Thatcherism – particularly with the inept John Major – and it will happen again when Dave Cameron boots out Gordon Brown at the next election.

Unfortunately each side paints the other side as boogeymen which is laughable. Don’t vote them – or the world will end as we know it! etc. It is better to be independent – that is be prepared to switch your vote if necessary to any party if their polices, the leader offers something better – otherwise you usual party of choice will take you for granted. And where did I excuse ‘corrupt socialist enslavement programs’ – whatever that means?

By the way check out http://www.moral-politics.com/. I came out -2.5, -5 which is on the border between Capital Democratism and Progressive NeoLiberialism – a long way from Socialism.

Gaffa-

Pot-

Alright, since you seem resolved to ignore my point, I shall try and put it in very plain English. We have enough problems with alcohol and tobacco. My stance is that we do not add any more substances to the list of legal ways to screw up your life. I am not advocating making anything else illegal. I am advocating not making things any worse than they already are. Can you comprehend the difference between wanting to control every aspect of people’s lives and refusing to be an enabler for self destructive behavior? You claim the government is treating people like children by making them face the consequences of their actions. I put it to you that removing consequences from bad decisions is how bad parents spoil their children, and taking responsibility for your choices in life is part and parcel with maturity.

Abortion-

You ask me a bunch of situational questions regarding abortion issues, I answer, you ignore my answer and ask me again. This seems to be a habit of yours. I shall repeat myself. The various smaller side issues surrounding abortion, just like abortion itself, are matters that are delegated by the Constitution to the States to decide. Rape is a situation that I personally would allow an abortion to end such a pregnancy. The victim did not make a decision to have unprotected sex, and therefor the result is not a consequence that she should be responsible for. If some State is so religiously fundamentalist that they voted to ban such a procedure, then that should be their right. Chemical contraception does not bother me any more than latex or rhythm methods, although the “morning after” version pushes the envelope.
You may notice a common theme in my replies. Personal responsibility. Killing a tiny, helpless person because you are too stupid, lazy, careless, or selfish to behave responsibly in preventing a pregnancy (either through abstinence or contraception) is not an acceptable way to avoid the consequences of your actions. Teaching abstinence and/or contraception, in the home or in the schools, is yet another matter that states should be deciding for themselves, and citizens should be judging where they live by. Women who find the act of quisinarting an unborn baby and sucking the corpse out with a shop-vac to be so enjoyable and such a vital part of their existence that they can not live without the experience, would be welcome to move to California or whichever other Liberal State they chose.

Eugenics-

African Americans = (aprox.) 12% of American population
African Americans aborted= 37% of all American abortions
512 out of every 1,000 black pregnancies end in abortion
Abortion ends more “black” lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime… combined.

Yeah, abortion doesn’t have any racial overtone. I guess I’m just hysterical. I can type out a post longer than this entire missive simply by listing quotations of people involved with the Progressive movement speaking to each other about sterilizing or aborting Negroes and other “undesirables”. Is ethnic cleansing not evil when the end goal is simply smaller population percentages instead of genocide?

Political parties-

I am a Conservative. I vote Republican when they espouse conservative ideals, or when the alternative is Democrats spending trillions of dollars a month of tax payer’s money to build up Socialist programs while Rome burns. I at least hold out some small hope that even squishy Republicans have a better chance of “seeing the light” than Obama and his gang. Ten years from now, if the parties have reversed positions, then I will still be voting for whoever proposes to reduce taxes, reduce the size of government, and cut back governmental intrusion into my private life and how I raise my family, whether that is the “R”s or the “D”s.

Welfare State-

Research the crime and poverty statistics since “the Great Society” was enacted. Democrat welfare programs create both more poverty, and dependence upon their “generosity”. How would you describe a political party that deliberately impoverishes people and offers to provide sustenance in exchange for votes? Liberals “give a man a fish”. Conservatives propose to “teach a man to fish” (or at least that he ought to freaking learn how and stop begging for fish :P)

@Lightbringer

I don’t think I have ignored your point. You seem to be defending the status quo because it’s easier to keep things as they are rather than rationalise what we are banning and why. If you are concerned about how things screw people up then why not advocate banning alcohol and smoking? Let’s use the simplistic cookie jar analogy.

Child C parents have Cookies and Potato chips. The parents spank the child if he eats the cookies before dinner because it spoils his dinner. However they do nothing if the child helps himself to the chips before dinner. The child grows up fat – learning nothing about hedonistic impulses but realises is okay to do something if it’s allowed by the authorities because that’s the way it is.

I’m not claim the government is treating people like children by making them face the consequences of their actions. Quite the opposite. If I smoke tobacco then the natural consequences of that action is that I might get lung cancer and die. Little government intervention there beyound high taxes and hospital care. If I take pot then I ‘might’ go on to heroin, overdose and die. So the government which apparently knows better than I, chooses to put in a different consequence to avoid the real consequence – that of it being illegal.

Check out the chart from The Lancet – about various substances and where they believe they fit on the addictive/harm scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

Abortion
Your previous answer isn’t a real answer insomuch you say it should be up to the States to decide. Whether it’s federal or the States – I’m asking you what you believe in ‘personally’. I know in real life what you and I believe has virtually no impact on what happens in US law. But if you are concerned with life – then why not enforce it so that rape babies are to be protected as well – even though it wasn’t the fault of the mother getting raped – it still wasn’t the fault of the unborn baby either. And again – with the questions about contraception and teaching safe sex you personally dodge and leave that up to the States. If you don’t have a view then fair enough – but saying it’s up to the politicans isn’t a personal opinion.

As for eugenics – who decides to abort those babies? It is German Concentration Camp Guard who forcibly abort black babies? No it’s done by the mother choice. And I don’t think they enjoy the idea of sucking the corpse out with a shop-vac. Have you read Freakonomics? Check out a controversial opinion/finding they put forward…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Looks like we would all pay for the irresponsible actions if abortion was made illegal…

Welfare State
I think the welfare state in the US and the UK is too generous, too abused and creates an underclass with constant hand out. I see that as a sympton of ‘social democracy’ not liberalism. However Conservatives in both countries have had decades in power – and they have done little to roll back such a culture.

Did you try out the http://www.moral-politics.com/?

Gaffa-

I don’t have much time before work, but I’ll answer some of your points.

Pot-

Do you think “Child C” is going to magically end up Not Fat if he eats both cookies AND chips? That is my point. There are already enough snacks available, we don’t need to start offering more.

Rape abortions-

While I personally would have no problems with protecting all unborn babies, I also believe in a woman’s right to choose. Meaning that if she chose to have sex, she has used up her choice in the matter and should deal with the result without murdering anyone. Since she did not choose to get raped, she still has a choice to make. That is what pro-abortionists always conveniently gloss over when kvetching about “choice”. Except in rape cases, that baby is a direct result of a choice that woman made. Does not the child get any choice in the matter?

As for the 30 million supposedly worthless scum that have been murdered since Roe vs. Wade. How many would have made it out of poverty? How many were killed by less than impoverished mothers? (how many would have grown up to be the first African American President?) I find it rather callous to sentence 30 million infants to death for crimes they had not committed yet. One other thing. Let us assume that they all would have been lower class and poor and never succeeded in life, they could still have been doing the jobs that 20+ million illegal aliens are now doing. The illegals seem to have filled in for the ethnically cleansed abortion victims in the crime category as well. We did not get rid of a bunch of poor people, we traded them in for poor people who cannot speak English.

Welfare-

In the late ’90s, the Republican Congress rolled back welfare quite a bit. Basically instituting “term limits” for welfare benefits. Obama has just erased that step. But yes, not many have had the guts to advocate doing away with the welfare state.

Less than 1.5% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. Check out Planned Parenthood’s data if you wish, but you will confirm that 25% of the time, women have abortions because they don’t want people to know they got pregnant. Some 40+% are unmarried, and at least 70% respond that the baby would be a dramatic change to their lives (i.e. it would be a major inconvenience); note that the percentages add up to more than 100% because most women give more than one reason (the average is four) for having abortions.

Abortion would be a much smaller and less contentious topic if it was rarely practiced; the best solution therefore might be for society to make abortion as unnecessary as possible. In some communities, this may be accomplished largely by teaching children and young adults to respect life and to be responsible. This won’t solve every situation, because we all know that sex and having babies are often substitutes for love and status in many communities, but even in these communities it’s just as vital to teach responsibility and respect for human life. However, to the degree that abortions may be necessary, I think we should leave the government and the state out of the picture. We will probably never eliminate abortions, so the best thing to do (again, in my opinion) is to let the decision belong to the doctor and patient (or patient’s guardian, in the case of a minor).

The biggest problem I see with Obama’s policies (and the policies of so many other ultra-liberals) is that they don’t mind reducing people’s initiative to work hard to support themselves, when it’s so much more politically expedient to buy votes through enlarging entitlement programs. By and large, Conservatives in the U.S. believe that this country was founded by people who had a vision to establish themselves through hard work and sacrifice (even though history shows us that the sacrifice was not borne equally by all). Enlarging social entitlement programs and claiming to “tax only the rich” to pay for it all is not only disingenuous (as budget critics point out time and time again), but it harkens back to the cry of the Communists: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Savvy politicians and the well-connected have always used this argument to redistribute wealth, keeping the lion’s share for themselves, and history has always shown this scheme to fail.

I don’t have all the answers, but I do have the right (and responsibility) to point out hypocrisy in government whenever I see it; lately, I’ve seen far too much of it disguised as preventing economic catastrophes and ensuring we take care of the rights of all people to free health care, free food, affordable or free housing, free education, and jobs. I argue that these are not rights; they may be moral obligations, but they are not rights bestowed upon us just because we happen to be human beings. Nature grants no rights.

Jeff V

Cars and houses are expensive and not every person can buy it. Nevertheless, loans was invented to aid different people in such situations.