I was asked that question recently by a friend in California via email, and I admit, this was something I have pondered a lot. Rush Limbaugh believes that Obama is intentionally destroying our economic system, so that, the largest structure, government, can simply pick up the pieces and take over, once our nation collapses.
There is one big problem with this theory: maybe it is true and maybe it is false, but this approach is unlikely to convince an independent, who is sitting on the fence, unsure about what is going on.
Calling Obama a Communist or a Marxist or likening him to Hitler will elicit the same response. First of all, he is certainly not a Marxist, although he has some Marxist ideas and leanings, and I seriously doubt that the President is going to start putting Jews into interment camps. Sure, he might abandon Israel, but that is no different than Carter.
Even calling Obama a socialist is not a convincing approach. First of all, there is a large segment of our population who actually believe that there is social and economic justice to be found in some sort of a socialist system, simply because there are huge numbers of people who are not very smart about history—or, even current events. Our president probably is, more than anything else, a European-style socialist, but this label simply is much less damaging than the reality of our becoming a European-style, socialist democracy.
My point here is, you may still think Obama is a Marxist and has this great plan to destroy the United States through making our economy collapse, but I would not use these ideas to speak to those who are on the fence about his presidency.
Instead, I would focus on what is clearly true: President Obama has never run anything before in his life. He has not had a large business, a small business, or even a lemonade stand. So, when it comes to running the most powerful corporation in the world—the United States—he is simply ill-equipped to do so. Now that is an easy argument to make to someone else.
Furthermore, President Obama is fundamentally fixed on big government solutions. If something breaks, if something isn’t right, if there is some inequity in the nation, this is something to be solved by more taxes, by more governmental agencies, and more governmental control. And he will promise that, all he will have to do is tax the rich a couple more dollars—they can afford it—and everything will be all better, because his administration will act “carefully and decisively to fix the problem.”
By this time in Obama’s presidency, if someone is willing to discuss politics with you rationally, and knows something, then those are two easy points to make (1) Obama has no experience and (2) he defaults to a big government solution. It is not difficult to show anyone with an open mind, this is what is going on.
Our economy was in recession, and the President sold us on a stimulus bill plan which was about 6X larger than any stimulus bill that had ever been passed previously, and at no time in our history has a stimulus bill ever clearly jump-started the economy.
He promised that unemployment would go no higher than 8.5%, and then come back down again; he told us that both conservative and liberal economists believed that this was a good approach to the problem (conservative economists which I read were very much against the bill), and the end result was a bill which spent $800 billion with no measurable positive results (apart from his people getting out there and saying, after the fact, “Well, the recession would have been much worse”).
If you want to go further into this particular bill, blue districts received about twice the money that red districts received, and yet, there is no discernable difference in the economic impact between red and blue districts.
This pattern has continued throughout the past year + of his presidency. He took of GM motors, he proposed to tell Chrysler how to survive their problems, and, in the recent healthcare bill, he took over the entire student loan industry, which will put tens of thousands of people out of work.
The pattern is the same: he exudes great confidence about things which he knows nothing about; he has no experience in these areas which he proposes to fix, and his incompetence is clearly seen in the results.
Another example is Obama’s mortgage program, where $75 billion was to be spend by the government in order to help 3–4 million good Americans stay in their homes. This was known as the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Again, more and more federal bureaucracies, lots of money spend, a big government solution, and the end result? Less than 20% of those Obama promised to help got help. Furthermore, we do not know the long-term results of those who were helped. Will they actually stay in their houses, or, a few months or years down the road, will they end up defaulting again?
The passing of the recent healthcare bill is the same. Because of some women who was wearing her dead sister’s old dentures and other such sad stories, President Obama proposes to take over the healthcare system, put over 100 new government agencies in charge of it, and spend billions of dollars, and yet somehow, almost magically, he promises that healthcare will become more affordable to all, more people will have healthcare insurance, that this will reduce the deficit, and healthcare will be made all better. More government, more government spending by a man who knows nearly nothing about running anything.
So, among your conservative friends, it might be enjoyable to shoot the bull, and discuss what President Obama envisions for America and whether or not he wants to bring our country down. Does he worship at the altar of Karl Marx? Might be fun to argue over a glass of wine. I would not suggest that this is a good approach when speaking to others who are not like-minded.
What is clear, and not hard to argue to anyone with an open mind is, the President has no executive experience, but he favors big government solutions and dramatic spending by the government, but without clear, positive results. About 60–70% of our population understands that you do not put somewhat with no experience in the pilot’s cockpit. That percentage would prefer less government, not more. That percentage would prefer less government spending, not more. It is this overwhelming percentage who will change history by electing a new Congress and, in less than 3 years, a new president.
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
“…he is certainly not a Marxist…”
Do you have any particular grounds for this statement?
And … as a by the by… have you read “Liberal Facism” by Jonah Goldberg??
Use reason and common sense? With a LIBERAL??
Yeah, that’s worked SO well in the past… 🙄
The debt is destroying America, the out of control government spending.
You make a false assumtion if you really think Obama is actually running anything.
Like you said, he has no experience, his is in effect out of his league and simply not that smart.
What makes you think that he is leading anything ?
He can’t even answer simple questions. He can’t speak without a teleprompter.
He is an EMPTY SUIT.
Q) If… Barack Hussein Obama is not trying to deliberately destroy America, please list below what he would be doing differently?
A) Not a thing.
The Federalist No. 10
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)
Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS
Since the person writing this has no factual grounding in history, it is senseless to attempt to reason with him.
“First of all, he is certainly not a Marxist, although he has some Marxist ideas and leanings, and I seriously doubt that the President is going to start putting Jews into interment camps. Sure, he might abandon Israel, but that is no different than Carter.”
Apparently this person has his Marxists mixed up with his Nazis and thus, little or no awareness of history. His limited understanding of what is happening around him, no doubt heavily influenced by the standard dose of left-wing propaganda taught in public schools, begins and ends with his limited lifetime recall.
How would a Marxist elected to the presidency, through an honest election, go about changing the country to a Marxist country in a legal manner? I assume he would nationalize any major industry that was facing bankruptcy, he would nationalize the Health Care Industry fairly quickly, he would consolidate union support by giving unions special entitlements, making them more equal, nationalizing student loans is but a first step in controlling advanced education so that becomes a logical progression. Gaining control over broadcasting is always important in Marxist Totalitarian countries, it is true he has almost complete control over the media in most of TV and they have in effect become state run media outlets for propaganda; but there s the damned problem with the internet and talk radio and Fox News; all of them are serous problems for Obama and his efforts at control.
Other than those minor moves that only appear to be the efforts of a Marxist or what an honest Marxist would attempt, there are no reasons to consider Obama a Marxist. Discounting his dedication to redistributing wealth, a promise of every Marxist; discounting his advocacy ad tutelage under Marxists and his appointments of Marxists, there is hardly a reason to assume Obama is a Marxist.
Stalin considered Socialism a logical progression towards Communism, a step in the revolutionary process; although, many people will claim absolutely not these will include Liberals, trade unionists, Progressive Socialists, and Communists. How many of these people will lie and deny that fact?- we are about to find out in the near future.
From Russian newspaper: PRADA:
If this is true and I have no reason to think it isn’t we might have a bigger problem than I thought.
The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian on-line newspaper) defies description. Why can a Russian newspaper print the following yet the American media can’t/won’t see it? Check Snopes link below.
American Capitalism Gone With (only) A Whimper (by Stanislav Mishin – April 2009)
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized inAmerica.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just inAmerica’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not,Americaat best will resemble theWeimarRepublicand at worstZimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less than two months ago, warned Obama andUK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “free man” whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
Stanislav Mishin atstas.mishin71@gmail.com
The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Here is a link to SNOPES to verify that this is a real article.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pravda.asp
I am afraid my friends President Obama is giving his base what they want.Government will handout goodies to all of its groups at the expense of the productive.Business gave to the Dems and they are going to reap what they sowed.If Obama takes over and taxes the crap out of them we conservatives should stand aside.It is time conservatives told the Republican Party and Big Business either stop supporting the Left or we are not going to defend you.
The answer is he is fixing the economy to support the various Dem groups.Machine politics nationwide.Big Business thinks he will go easy on them.They are in for a shock.
“So, among your conservative friends, it might be enjoyable to shoot the bull, and discuss what President Obama envisions for America and whether or not he wants to bring our country down. Does he worship at the altar of Karl Marx? Might be fun to argue over a glass of wine. I would not suggest that this is a good approach when speaking to others who are not like-minded.”
I could give a crap about the feelings of those who are not “like-minded”. I’m done keeping silent any more and worrying about “feelings”. Our liberty, our personal freedoms, our entire way of life is being flushed down the crapper at alarming speed by the Marxist-in-Chief and all his socialist-communist-maoist-corrupt-o-crat cronies in his administration, and his morally bankrupt czars and czarinas, who by the way, are mostly czars because they could not possibly pass the muster of being vetted. So what we need to do is wake up our liberal friends and family members and stop worrying about stepping on toes. We need to scream from the rooftops if need be. We need to stop politely avoiding unpleasant subjects in “mixed” company. Being passionately patriotic is the way to influence those who may still be sleep walking through this last 15 months.
Skookum has it exactly right. And so does DANEgerous. Obama is a human wrecking ball, to quote Mark Levin. We need to stop his agenda before we completely lose America as we know it.
Hmmmm…
We were a Free Market Capitalistic Republic… with a limited Government and Rights belonging to the people…
Obama RAN on a platform of fundamentaly changing America, and how it works…
ie, if you are going to change us… then…
We become Socialist… with an unlimited Government, with all power belonging to the Government, and the people having limited, or no Rights.
He TOLD us what he was going to do… Fundamentaly change who we were… into some Image HE had.
FDR tried the same agenda. The only thing that stopped him was world war II, sort of threw a monkey wrench into the machinery, forcing industry to produce and hire for the war effort. The war was the only thing that got us out of the designed depression that lasted from 1929 till the war. The same people that were behind FDR are now behind Obama ( not the same most are dead, but the same agenda) trying to cause people to depend on the Government for their daily keep.
I’m sorry. I have to disagree on several levels. Transferring control of production and the financial sector (that finances production) to government control IS Marxism.
Further the reason to remove this man from office is the crimes he has committed.
Obstruction of justice (IG-gate, Panthergate, stopping the prosecution of Bill Richardson), Bribery (Romanoff in Colorado Senate race, Stupack in Pennsylvania Senate Race).
While his Isreal and pro-islam leanings could be argued as treason (aid and comfort to the enemy), as could his newly declared nuclear weapons stance, the legal case is weak.
He has to be removed or defeated to prevent the destruction of our nation.
mg’s article is enlightening.
The main article’s points are weak in some areas. First, not being a Marxist but having Marxists ideas reminds me of my city’s gang problem back in the nineties.
We had a couple of sets of young men and women who wore Crip colors, kept a Crip bible, road in cars looking for people who violated their turf or insulted them. They beat people up, robbed people, did burglaries and were involved in drive by shootings. I was on the anti-gang task force running these guys to the ground. My upper management refused to call them a “gang” in public or in the papers. What I heard was “well they aren’t really a gang. They are just wanna-be gang members.” The unprepared and uninformed bosses got their idea of what a gang member was from TV. They were looking for blacks or Hispanics with button up plaid shirts and blue bandannas throwing signs and saying “homie” a lot.
I told them what I’ll say now. Just because they don’t fit the classic definition doesn’t mean they aren’t exactly what they appear to be. Ask the kid who just got shot in the back if there is any difference between getting shot by a real gangbanger or just a wanna be?
People always look for ways to minimize the danger they are in. This author is one of those. Boys and girls, we are in some serious s**t and we need to grasp that concept, the sooner the better.
Read the book. (www.revoltthebook.com)
I think the point of Gary’s post flew over every single commenter’s head.
@
TexasFred:
Gary is talking about independent voters and those in the middle who can go either way. Not entrenched true-believers of Obamaism and the progressive movement.
@PatriotGirl:
This is not what Gary is saying. It’s about finessing; about getting people to stop and listen, rather than for them to shut down when you lay in with the “Obama is a Muslim”, “Obama isn’t a born citizen”, “Obama wants to destroy the country” crap. People’s nature is to get defensive when you attack them politically, if they are supporters/voters of Obama.
Just convincing the amen chorus of conservative voters isn’t going to win elections. You need to win over the independents and center-left voters. You don’t do that by clubbing them over the head with wingnut-sounding talk of “Obama is evil”, “Obama wants to destroy America”, “Obama is intentionally ruining the economy”, he’s “palling around with terrorists”… To moderates and those who don’t follow day-to-day politics, but who do tune in to John Stewart and who do “get out the vote”, that kind of talk is nutter-talk. It alienates and turns people off.
@DANEgerus:
He believes he is transforming America for the better. He may be destroying the country as we’ve known it; but it’s not out of a desire to to do harm. He wants a successful presidency and legacy.
Wordsmith, in your efforts at diplomacy, may I suggest another approach?-the Progressive Socialists won over no one with calling Bush vile names and with outrageous and false accusations; yet, Bush lost major support with profligate spending and compassion for the illegal alien. The war in Iraq cost a few percentage points; but was a trifle compared to the other two. They did not cause the loss of Liberals, liberals were never on the same side of the fence: it was the loss of independents and moderate Republicans that helped insure the election of Obama.
Now Obama is caught in outrageous lies, and profligate spending that is beyond our ability to comprehend, he promotes a welfare or entitlement state that will cripple our economy, while he undermines our traditional allies while holding out the hand of friendship to tyrants. If we were to concentrate on these obvious and indisputable facts, along with the nationalization of Health care and the auto industry, these alone might be all we need to influence the fence sitter. Rather than using the inflammatory tactics of the Progressive Socialist during the Bush Presidency.
WORDSMITH You get enough Repubs.thinking and talking like that and Dems. might actually have something to worry about in 2012.
Gary,
Do you remember during Obama’s campaign that he said he wants a civilian police force as large as the military and funded equally? What was Hitler’s civilian police force called? He wants that because he can’t activate the National Guard. The governors have to.
Whatever you call it he wants to be King Of The Hill. You associate yourself with those you most admire, and Obama admires dictators. Remember him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia? Call it whatever you want, but I use the word KING because it represents him wanting ABSOLUTE authority.
“By this time in Obama’s presidency, if someone is willing to discuss politics with you rationally, and knows something, then those are two easy points to make (1) Obama has no experience and (2) he defaults to a big government solution. It is not difficult to show anyone with an open mind, this is what is going on. ”
Well, I made those same arguments to liberals and independents I know PRIOR to the election. A few of them quit talking to me, because I was an alarmist and had no proof of my points (even when I showed them proof). It didn’t work then, because they all wanted “change”. So perhaps now it is an even more telling and solid argument…..however it is a tad LATE to be making that argument. obama’s actions are proof enough that whatever he is, he is on the path to destroying our nation. He has got to be the most racially divisive president ever as well.
@Skookum:
McCain got 6 million fewer votes than Bush did; but it wasn’t from a loss of votes from Republicans who “sat on their hands” in protest. Almost exactly the same number of Republicans voted in 2008 as in 2004 for the Republican candidate(s).
There are Dinos, Rinos, moderates and independents (those not ideologically entrenched liberals and conservatives but simply non-committed voters) who can be influenced to either side. They are the ones who decide elections.
There is only one meaningful question: how do you know that?
Hope. What hope has Obama created, and for whom? What individuals have hope now, who did not have hope in 2008? Do not be satisfied with generalities, press for specifics. For those how now have hope for health care, ask about what physician will provide that care. How, specifically, does the person know that the physician will see them? How does that person know that there will be a physician in his or her town? How does that person know that the medicine will be available?
Hope. What hope does an unemployed person have of finding a job? Press for details; ask for names of specific individuals and specific employment opportunities for them.
Change. What change has Obama brought? Are we less afflicted by racism now than in 2008? Has the evidence ever been brought forth of the ethnic slurs purportedly uttered during the Congressional Victory Tour? Hundreds of video cameras, and not a second of evidence.
Is our international situation changed for the better? Are we less threatened by terrorism? Are we more secure, with endless lines at security gates at airports, accompanied by panty bombers who get free rides? Is there less danger of nuclear war, with the growing nuclear power of North Korea and Iran?
Change. Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philadelphia. This is apparently permissible behavior in USObama land. But the threats and intimidation had better not come from Bible-carrying Fundamentalists, or there will be heavy jail time to come. Are we all Black Panthers now?
Change. What change has made us less dependent on foreign oil? What change has made us more self-sufficient? Where is the mystical energy from wind turbines? Where are the new oil and gas wells? Where are the permits for new nuclear reactors?
The entire Obama regime is based on feelings, not on facts.Ask for details, and you will be vilified as a racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a redneck, or possibly even worse. Unfortunately for Obamorons, governments cannot pay bills with hope or change. Bureaucrats must be compensated, housed, fed, and otherwise provided for. We already have more Federal government than we can afford.
Wordsmith, I accept the correction; although I have never considered the possibility of a non ideologically entrenched Liberal, non entrenched Conservatives, yes, they exist, many are among our faithful, including Fearless Mata: I would consider myself an independent if Democrats weren’t swimming blindly in a stagnant quasi-Socialist pond; but, non entrenched Liberals must be an almost negligible number. Do they have a web page?
Are there signs that Liberals are contemplating deserting the ‘Won’, like the last ones to leave a sinking ship? It might happen, I hope it does. I would love to read their ideas on the subject: however, someone would need to pay me a lot of money to read through most of their insipid drivel.
It’s true that we cannot win over, with cries of marxist and socialist, those that are armed with logic and reason, those people don’t typically need to be “won over”. But the independent, that’s another story. There’s a delimiter that moves the independent in one direction or the other. The predominance of emotion or reason in guiding their thought process.
The far left is an emotional beast, the conservative a creature of reason. But the independent, where is he/she on the scale. Making that determination is the first order of business before any persuasive argument can be made to any effect.
I’ve found that regardless of the logic and reason in my argument, if my audience has a proclivity to make decisions based on emotions, no amount of logic or well chosen words on my part will persuade them. I have to find a way to tap into their emotions, and my words will not do accomplish that task. I have found that the words of the candidates themselves are far more effective in engaging their emotions. To this end I find it very useful to find well produced video’s if I can on YouTube.com that are a compilation of the most outrageous proposals the candidate has made and let the individuals own emotions do the convincing. But it is absolutely necessary that they not be taken “out of context” for that destroys all argument.
Obama, has proposed so many outrageous courses of action that there is a plethora of material available. Unfortunately finding these, “in their own words” gems, without a Glenn Beck, wrapper is not all that easy to do. I can only hope that in the coming campaigns, the power of the compiled video will be recognized by the campaign managers of conservative candidates along with an understanding of the power of viral marketing and that they will create well produced and coherent compilations for distribution.
By well produced, I mean that they must not simply be willy nilly snippetts but twell thought out progressions that guide the viewer to a conclusion which taps into their emotions. We report – you decide.
For most of you who have happened to mention the word “History”, you at least have a modicum of understanding of how key that history represents the pattern of what is taking place here. For the individuals that cannot seem to comprehend the terms, “socialist”, “Marxist” or “communist” and how they directly apply to this clown in the White House, it is certainly not my intent to demean anyone (but it will and obviously should), might I suggest re-reading the Communist Manifesto, I believe it was written by one the Marx brothers, “Carlo”, just for grins. You will be amazed at the parallels drawn within. Might I also suggest that if you are worried about offending the “fence sitters”, libertarians, independents and the like, and believe that watering down your views in hopes to suborn their confidence because you don’t want to offend them you are sadly wasting your time. People that are offended by the passionate truths being put forth by others here, will be a “red flag” that it is not the verbiage being used that turns them off, it is the mere fact that you are questioning their ability to use rational thought and they who voted for “The One” will never admit that they were less than thoughtful about their decision to do so. You will probably never convince them otherwise, ergo, wasted breath. The individuals that are truly concerned within the aforementioned ilk, are dare I say “big enough”, to realize they were mistaken and realize that the onslaught of this administration, congress, drive by media and the rest, is leveled at them just as well and they will be affected by all of this just as much. Sadly, they will need to come to those conclusions on their own, much to the chagrin and cost to the rest of us that see and understand perfectly well what is taking place here and now.
Wordsmith As I suspected,your reasoned appeals are falling on deaf ears among your faithful readers.They would appear to prefer the rantings and ravings of the Hannitys and Becks of the world. This as you wisely know Wordsmith may bring them satisfaction but will help to ensure a BHO victory in 2012.It didn’t work for the far left against “W” and it sure as hell won’t work for the far right against Obama.
Well, Word, “da man”, mon ami… I just had to read what got rich wheeler all dewey eyed over you. LOL
I’m going to meet you on a halfway on this statement by saying it’s all dependent upon your viewpoint – from where you stand on America as founded.
In the halfway of support of your comment, I’m quite sure that Chavez feels he’s improving Venezuela, that Castro felt he was making Cuba better, and even that the Euro-socialist countries that Obama considers iconic for his newly “remade” America felt that their health care, VAT taxes, high taxes, and monstrous social welfare nets were also an improvement for their countries. I’m sure the Netherlands were confident they were improving their lot in life until they saw the repercussions fiscally and immigration assimilation problems… then took a hard right to correct.
The problem with Obama’s “change” and “remaking” is that he has the benefit of history and current events to evaluate these nations’ “change” effect. Despite the fiscal and political-socio failures of these varied systems from the full bore socialist countries to the “soft” socialists in Europe, Obama still flattens the gas pedal to the metal down the same flawed path.
Does this make him a devoted ideologue with “good intent”? At least in his own mind, it does. Does this reveal him to be observant and astute to such political and socio changes on economy and culture? Not very. Despite our economic woes, many a Euro nation is far worse indebted to GDP, and with higher government social programs than we have… er, had.
Does he want a successful presidency and legacy? But of course. However he is defining what is “successful”. To launch the US on a path to universal/single-payer is a “success” to him.
All the above is because this POTUS has a different upbringing and perspective on America as founded. He has minced no words when it comes to his desire to “fundamentally remake” this country.
This makes this POTUS a poor student of history and current events, and dangerously bent on an agenda that is counter to our founded beliefs and governance. From my perspective, that is undeniable as intent to do harm. He cannot “fundamentally remake” this nation unless he can convince this nation that America, as founded on capitalism, free enterprise and individual freedoms, no longer works.
Now if you feel I need to soften my words in order to tiptoe around someone, I can certainly shoot rubber tipped arrows when needed. But I reserve that special quiver for those misguided O’faithful that are confirmed believers in individual freedom and abhor government intrusion… and didn’t expect this from the “da won”.
Otherwise that soft ammo is wasted on those that believe, like this POTUS, that social justice and behemoth goverment programs are not only the civilized way to go, but the only moral way to go. As many have said here in the past, for some, you “just can’t fix stupid”. For them, to pierce their nanny government armor, they require the sharpened arrowhead.
@rich wheeler, we will find common ground in abhorrence of Hannity. However I’ve watched Beck for years, and have watched him evolve to his current formatted show. He does not “rant” unless, of course, you consider what he says is a rant instead of the way it’s presented. Beck is good for teaching those that do not follow politics regularly some of the basics in life. He’s far from a raving lunatic.
If you don’t agree with him, that’s one thing. But to label him something he is not…i.e. some political shock jock doing it for effect…. just shows me you’ve never seen much more of Beck than snippets on your favored leftist sites. Since you’re so wow’d by Word’s kinder/gentler communiques, that is the kindest way I can say that you are seriously ill-informed and intolerant, and more than a touch gullible.
Keeping my remarks brief and pithy, I must say, “You’re damn right he and his handlers are intentionally trying to destroy the economy. And people who are on the fence about him need to be bludgeoned with the raw truth, not some “centrist” arguments. This guy is the most dangerous enemy the United States has ever had. Why? Because the Marxists are at the levers of power for the first time. This is crunch time, patriots. We either kick them out in November or we’ll be stuck forever.” 👿
@MataHarley:
Well, we don’t seem to disagree here. The road to Obamunism is paved with “good intent”.
Mata,
Think more in terms of entering in through a Trojan Horse. People are more inclined to drop their guard and give you a fair chance to say your piece if you sound reasonable and don’t go all berserk on their belief system and political hero. Tell them “Liberals are stupid and you’re an idiot for being a liberal”, and they will probably shut you out; you might even drive them further left and make them dig their heels in.
Most of my friends are Dems; but not all of them are completely brainwashed and gone; beyond “redemption” from the brink of no return. Some are having doubts about Obama on their own, by actually paying attention. And the ones I talk to on politics, some are taking my arguments and counter-arguments to heart and mulling them over. One friend is driving her lefty husband nuts as she brings up things I’ve brought to her attention for which she has no good answers (and apparently he doesn’t either! Lol). And I think part of this is because I’ve gained their trust on not just sounding like a deranged partisan, right-wing nutjob, the living embodiment of rightwing hate-spew as caricaturized by MSM. Even if I am, it’s all in the marketing approach. Of course, there’s no one size fits all, and some people definitely need their belief system skewered with a vorpal blade.
There are moderate Dems and independents out there who voted for him who are already disillusioned with buyer’s remorse saying “this is not the change we envisioned for”. We could use their votes this November. There are others who still believe in him; but aren’t entrenched leftist ideologists- just ill-informed and for the most part, not following politics on a daily basis. They are vulnerable to propaganda and can be influenced.
That said, I think you are also right that you “can’t fix stupid” (*cough*BRob*cough*) when from the ground up, their whole foundation is built on flawed bricks to begin with. Not just a few top layers. For the BRobs of the world, go ahead and bring out the wrecking ball and demolition team and have fun.
M.H. I too have watched Beck “evolve”.To his credit he no longer looks like he just stepped out of a Salvation Army store into a wind tunnel.Props to his wife and barber.His politics are far right shock jock and getting worse.I’d suggest the most gullible among us are those who buy into his chalk board “teachings”
M.H. off subject How bout that stock mkt? I believe it is a leading indicator and as shown previously has outperformed under Dem admins.You’ll never hear mention of it on Hannity or Beck.For the record I like O’Reilly.Think he puts on a great show.
rich wheeler, rather an ugly side to you which you chose to reveal. I shan’t be commenting on your shallow remarks on personal appearance. However whatever esteem I gave you as a political opponent has dropped more than a few notches now.
INRE stockmarket, I see you take your personal assaults, then do the billy bob shuck and jive diversion tactic. Several of us here have already tried to correct you… a failed stockbroker from a decade or so ago… to reality of the market as an indicator from far more credible economic link sources than you possess in grey matter. Not only is it not a dependable “indicator” thru prior recessions, but it’s hardly a surprise the market is doing well since taxpayer cash has been infused to hold it up by it’s boot straps. That pensioners and personal investors… a high percentage of Americans, as a matter of fact… are beginning to see a bit of return after the hit makes me happy. What I also hope is that they know what’s the reason, and when to pull out and reinvest in less risky arena. But with the feds pretty much funding all the risk out with 0 interest, it’s time to make the money before the next shoe drops. Go for it.
But don’t try to pretend this is anything that’s indicative of the real economy. Because you will prove yourself to not only be shallow, but even more gullible than I suspected.
For other remarks and to reference the Seeking Alpha and other links provided to you INRE the market as a indicator over the history of recessions last century, I suggest you return to *that* thread, and no further attempts to hijack this thread are attempted.
And I apologize here to everyone for even responding to the wheeler BS.
There’s an enemy far greater than any threat The Won could engender. It is those that are pulling his strings, ObaMao didn’t get to where he is now on his own. I wouldn’t even be suprised if he doesn’t get thrown under the bus in 2012 for someone more “moderate”… hmmm could that be HRC. Think “overton window”. Hillary’s greatest deficit was her lack of foreign relations expertise. Whether her current foriegn relations experience is categorized as good or bad, it is experience and she’s completely insulated from the economic situation that is currently upon us as well as the “health care” debacle. For many, she will seem down right conservative, in comparison to Obama.
While we are all preparing for Obama in 2012, the masterminds behind his rise to political power may be planning on a suprise for us all… Let ObaMao take us as far and as fast as possible in the direction of statism and then throw him under the bus and use the crisis that he creates for a “moderate” to take “drastic” actions to right the ship.
Any scenerio is possible in this topsy turvy world of diabolical plots and sub-plots in which we live.
It seems you’re suggesting that if conservatives attempt to reason with moderates rather than run up to them, shake them by the lapels, and yell about The Glo-bama International Conspiracy Marxist Totalitarian Conspiracy, they might be more willing to listen. As we see in the Comments, there are arguments for both sides. As a citizen of an East Coast Babylon urban center afflicted with the sick emotional mindset known as liberalism, I may be able to provide some perspective. So let me put down my reefer pipe, close my Noam Chomsky book, and see if I can do so.
First off, I know people for whom Obama was the first Democrat they ever voted for in a national election, people who voted for Bush twice. For many, the vote for Obama was really more about a change from Bush than anything else. For others, I sensed a feeling that they had hit a critical mass with negative campaigning from all sides and Obama’s mostly-upbeat message was appealing. These people are by no means rock-solid Obama voters, but they’re still liable to be turned off by Obama-bashing that seems personal in nature or from the wild-eyed fringe. Some people on this board like the bang the drum about Obama not being a real American and such, but I am here to tell you, moderates don’t like to here stuff like that. It makes them feel kind of queasy inside. Remember how Bush was your regular guy? Well, Obama seems like a regular guy to many of us who voted for him. Not only that, he seems like an exceptional regular guy, the smartest guy at the office, the guy with the nice young family, the guy who might beat you at pick up basketball, but then will buy you a beer afterward. So stick with the issues and we can talk, but even we simple minded moderate-to-lefties read the papers sometime, so expect us to at least attempt some back and forth. You may not convince us this time, but you might just convince us to have another conversation. Lastly, keep in mind that it’s a zero sum game, so if the Republican’s put forth a candidate who turns off moderates, it will push voters back into Obama’s column again. With that in mind, make sure you nominate Sarah Palin!
>>…the market is doing well since taxpayer cash has been infused to hold it up by it’s boot straps…>>
To say nothing about inflation.
When I first married, chicken cost .29 per pound. The same thighs I used to buy then are 1.29 or more these days. Do you really think that chicken farmers are now some 4x richer than they were in those days?
Or you could just check out this link:
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/04/mr-obama-i-will-take-your-challenge.html
M.H. i am so sorry.I totally forgot there are no personal attacks against politicians or windbag commentators allowed on F.A.
Tom Amen to hoping they nominate Sarah.
You’ll note, I didn’t say you couldn’t make your remarks, rich wheeler. I pointed out that your remarks reflected on my personal opinion of you and your abilities. So don’t be blaming FA and imaginary “standards”. We are always happy to allow the shallow thinkers to make an ass of themselves publicly. It’s why billy bob gets the FA press.
@Tom
If ObaMao is the smartest guy at the office, I wouldn’t want to hire a firm with such low standards for anything important.
I gotta agree with Tom, in that yes, Obama fooled many people into thinking he was something he never was. (except those who don’t believe marketing hype). That veil has been lifted, and his numbers drop with every proclamation he makes, and with every action he initiates.
The moderated voters were fooled, and lied to in a manner that none of them would have thought possible. It’s to bad none of them had the brains or curiosity to do any research for themselves, as it was there all along. Some people preferred to be led.
That said, there is definitely as case for “modulation” when talking with ones friends, neighbors and acquaintances..one should “shape” the message for the recipient. There are several types of voters, and not all of them are as willfully stupid as BROB. Most are simply too trusting of the media, and the politicians. Others are blissfully ignorant, but have big hearts. These last two types should not be lumped in, nor treated as brainless BROB butt-buddies.
As I mentioned in a post a while back, most of my family have been steady Dem voters all their lives, and once I broached the present political situation, they unloaded on me in a manner that would make Obama run for the hills. They. Are. Pissed. And they are ashamed.
. Well bully for you M.H. Any sage predictions on 2010 House and Senate results.So far you’ve been wrong on just about everything. BTW are friendly wagers allowed on F.A? I made a bundle on BHO over HRC. BHO over Mac was too easy.
BTW What kind of respect is due a man who calls the POTUS a racist?
I didn’t predict any of the political races, including the 2008 POTUS election, rich wheeler. In fact, the only thing I have “predicted” (in comments, not in a post) that is wrong was that health care would get past the House Dems. But then, I didn’t anticipate the EO factor blindside in the last 24 hours, which is the only thing that pulled it over the finish line.
Other than that, your comment that I’ve been “wrong on just about everything” sounds like a pouty little boy, hoping no one has access to archives to prove you’re again talking out your posterior.
The worry about a “civilian defense force” is legitimate. Study other communists/ hard socialist nations. I predicted to completely control a city you would have to control the neighborhoods. What better way to do that then by turning neighborhood gangs and organizations like the New Black Panthers into an organized force. They would sell it as a way to “engage” the gangs, but the truth is they’ll just use them as leg breakers. Mao did it with the “Red Guard”, Mussolini with the “blackshirts” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts.
Obama or some president in the future has one heck of a resource in the inner cities of this nation. Uneducated, spoiled by generational welfare, criminal, uncivilized in many cases. These people would easily follow Obama or any leader promising them money and power. Add the New Black Panthers and you have a great resource for street level violence and enforcement.
Here is a part of the book manuscript I originally wrote in 1997. (www.revoltthebook.com)
“The old dark Ford sedan pulled up where Davis’s car left the road. Two large African American men in black clothing got out and looked over the edge of the void. They were part of Fontaine’s “National Civil Defense Force”, a civilian Para-military organization, initially organized in the third year of Fontaine’s administration. Fontaine sold the force as a way to have enhanced neighborhood security. Some described the force as the Guardian Angels on steroids. At first the crime rate did substantially drop in the neighborhoods where the NCDF operated. But the reason for the decline was that a substantial number of the recruits came from the same criminal ranks Fontaine was supposedly targeting. Through multi-million dollar grants, Fontaine was able to empower members of gangs, the new Black Panthers, and other like organizations in order to gain control of the inner cities. Over time two elements emerged from the NCDF. One was the street level group that watched over the neighborhoods. It encouraged the almost mandatory adherence to Fontaine’s “new way of doing things” he advocated in his campaign. The NCDF used community pressure to make citizens follow the rules of behavior. Anyone out of line, from a crack dealer to a business owner could be paid a late night visit from a couple of metal bar wielding attitude adjusters. The second part of the NCDF was a more professional unit executed special operations for Fontaine. These members were selected from the more committed recruits and professional criminals. Fontaine made sure members from the special units were positioned throughout the country. They were in effect a quick reaction force.”
Where did I get the idea? Cities have been “engaging” local gangs to legitimize them for years. Silly liberal ideas. It’s not a hop, skip and a jump to actually employing them.
And as we speak of this, The VAT tax is now being openly discussed. You ask if Obama is wanting to cripple us? Name a nation with high taxes, socialized medicine that can arm and deploy a military of any size for any length of time. Then he states that killing us in mass with toxins or bio weapons does not mean an automatic retaliation. Remember, no army, no nukes, no response, unless throwing sockballs counts.
And we are still discussing his ideological mindset? Really? I predicted at some point this would have to occur, all nations face this challenge in their time. The discussion we have is when does America reach the tipping point? Here’s another question- What if she has already passed it?
M.H Again my apologies. You’ve been wrong on Everything you’ve predicted.We’ll see on Steele.
Again I ask you What kind of respect does Beck deserve after calling Obama a racist?
Just what “prediction” about Steele do you believe I have made, rich wheeler? Did you go to school with billy bob???
M.H. You predicted he’d keep his job while I said he’ll be gone.How bout a response to my Beck query?
rich wheeler, I did not predict Steele would stay chair of the RNC as a result the strip club ta dooo. What I said was Steele, in my opinion, should stay. My own opinions of Steele’s position as chair are not a prediction.
Added: Oh… I see you want a comment on Beck. Put this in your cap. Obama, in my opinion, is a racist. He’s an affirmative action proponent, he’ll strip out any references to jihad and Islam to be PC, but not bat an eye when he sees the phrase “Christian militants” anywhere. His choice of personal friends, advisors and religious advisors are racists and anti-American to the point of one of them being a domestic terrorist, celebrated in educational circles and responsible for the deplorable education curriculums that are responsible for commentary we see from too many here. (ah ahem…)
Shall I chide Beck for nailing Obama for what he is? Truth hurts, eh?
And as far as respect, surely you aren’t going down this road after all the media pundits you revere have referred to Bush in considerably less endearing terms. Suck it up, dude.
@rich wheeler:
Considering that Beck stated his opinion and then backed it with volumes of facts, I’d say you need to worry about your opinion of Obie rather than those who find fault with him.
M.H. and A.C. You’ve made it clear you stand with Beck in declaring Obama a racist.The only media pundit I’ve mentioned I like is O’Reilly who I believe has treated Bush and Obama fairly and disagreed with Beck’s racist call on Obama.
If the radical right calls Obama a racist the American electorate will spank you for it in 2012.Ask Wordsmith.
I’m disappointed to see my fellow Flopping Aces co-authors continue to validate the ravings of an unrepentant lying racebaiter who refuses to accept the same standard of veracity that he daily demands of the rest of us.
He’s the modern liberal equivalent of Democrats in the KKK burning crosses in front of homes of black families. Some may be willing to forgive his attempt to inflame racial animosity and hatreds in service to a political ideology. I am not.
Such a person has nothing to offer to any meaningful civic dialogue. Once a liar, always a liar and he doesn’t deserve even a modicum of polite consideration.
I apologize to our dear readers who have had to read his idiotic ravings.
We keep a higher standard on my threads where you won’t be troubled by such a vile despicable liar.
Semper FAUX.
Forever a LIAR!
Patvann, well played, sir. But I assure you, I and many others do actually consider Obama both a real American and an “exceptional regular guy”. Others might prefer a rich kid from Connecticut playing cowboy. To each, his own.
Psychological projection at its finest.
I assume you’re referring to the Reverend Wright amongst others. No doubt Obama rightfully paid the price for that association, but I can’t even fathom where you’re going with the rest of this toxic dreck. (I’m sure you’ll enlighten us all with a 5000 word addendum rant.) It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that no one within the Republican party will stand up and say “enough is enough” and disassociate the party from the racist element that’s become so prevalent within its ranks (unless they literally have no choice). They need the votes! And because they tolerate it, the rest of us are further disgusted and turned off, so they need those votes even more. So I suppose the counter-accusation is one obvious place to go, that and “it’s not really happening, they’re all liberal plants!” Well, Mr. Kukis, I think you have your answer on your noble thought experiment.
We’ll keep it short for you, Tom. Don’t want to tax your attention abilities. You could have stopped at your self-description that “I can’t even fathom….”
Your politics make it obvious what pundits you’d like rich wheeler… and few of them are in any way conservative. Perhaps maybe, one of these days, you might get a clue that few of us care who you do and do not like in the media world since it’s relatively obvious we have a basic disconnect politically. You are not one of those Wordsmith thinks he can “covert” with soft cooing sounds and stealth entry. You are one of those I said needs the sharp arrowhead.
As far as “spanking” goes, only in your wet dreams, guy. Elections always come down to the lesser devil in the mix. And again, who the heck cares about your “predictions”.
I need to say zip, nada and follow that with nothing about my personal opinions about Obama to anyone. Obama reveals himself with every policy, speech and action. However you asked… no make that demanded… my opinion, and I told you where I stood. It happens to be the same place I stood back in 2008 because I listened to what he had to say… and gave him the benefit of the doubt he was speaking truth to his soul. He was a social justice, class warfare, government cures all problems, sick utopian dreamer then, and he is today. Obama has done nothing but prove my opinions of him correct ever since.
I cannot fault him for doing exactly what he said he set out to do. And that was delegate the socialist order agenda to Pelosi and Reid while he remained the salesman mouthpiece. What I can do is fault people like you for either being fooled by it, or craving Euro socialism in order to “remake” this country.
As a typical white person, I firmly believe the racist Obama is destroying our economy because he and his ilk believe with all their hearts that the so-called white-power-structure has purposely rigged it against the “helpless and victimized” minority.
Now now Patvann… you can’t be pointing out this POTUS’s admitted and long practicing Black Theology attitudes here. That makes you a racist, ya know. LOL
Wonder why it is that people can listen to this man say it straight out, and then insist it means something else. Must be some serious denial based on some sort of guilt, I guess.