Shortly after his election, Barack Obama declared that he would be everyone's president; those who didn't vote for him: "I'll be your president too". What he meant by that is not clear. Is he saying he will seriously consider my aversion to abortion, Hate laws, Pelosi and Marxism? Or is he saying that I am his subject, one he will be quick to "rule", in his minion's words?
Obama has already made deals with several foreign entities. He is now sending delegates of his choosing to the G20 economic summit. One might think that he is president now, but of course he is not. What he is, is NOT bound by rules, convention, or boundaries of any sort.
Obama is not my "ruler". He is my employee, if one takes "public servant" in its original meaning. But here is the obvious: Obama will not for one single second consider my aversion to abortion, Hate Laws, Pelosi, or to Marxism. So his statement was either a statement of intent to rule, or it was a lie.
But Obama is a bad liar. A good liar, when caught, would say something like, "Man that was a mistake; I wasn't thinking straight; I was thinking about something else..." and so on, faking responsibility in a manner that deflects responsibility. Obama merely denies that it ever happened. Even in face of evidence to the contrary. Reminds me of the guy on "COPS" who was caught with crack cocaine in his pants pocket. "Not my crack! Not even my pants!" Worst liar yet...until... Bill Clinton. Oops, I mean Obama.
BTW, A quick blogger caught the new First Lady quoting lines from a book called "Rules for Radicals". My book is now on order.
4 comments:
Stan: You are obviously a republican and standing in a huge pile of sour grapes.
Why don't you simply just give the man a chance at what the majority of voters gave him a mandate to do?
Your post is almost to silly to answer, but I had to answer.
I believe that the voters are for the most part, ignorant of what Obama thinks his mandate is. Obama's beliefs and objectives were actively suppressed by the media. He is a 2 year junior senator. But he is openly worshipped by the news outlets from which most people have historically gotten their information. The media basted Obama a "golden brown", while they scorched first Hillary and then Palin and McCain. Even the Clinton Leftists now admit this, as do many in the media itself. The media controlled the Obama election from early on.
What is his "mandate"? It is positive liberties replacing negative liberties through Supreme Court activism; It is a national police force, stronger than the military, reporting to Obama; it is hate (thought) crime legislation and ensuing First Amendment usurpation; it is the squelching of opposition broadcasting; it is the prosecution of opposition politicians for political crimes against the state; it is class envy and redistribution of wealth; it is the final institution of free abortion at all stages for all ages including teenagers w/o parental consent (and the death knell for states rights); it is certain death for born-alive fetuses (baby humans) that survive abortion... Need I go on?
This "mandate" is destructive of both human life and American culture, and is not supported by at least 50 million Americans, who will be powerless to influence or delay it - much less stop it.
I doubt that many of the Obama voters even know what they have done; for most Obama supporters it is enough that he is black and Democrat. This was obvious the day after the election when the media and the left spent all day gushing about his blackness: not his policies, his blackness; not his experience, his blackness; not his family history of Marxism, his blackness; not his choice of associates all his life, his blackness. It was obvious at that time that race was THE factor most adored about Obama. Nothing else mattered.
When the rest of the story comes out, it will certainly be a surprise to those on the left who dutifully maintained their ignorance. The replacement of morals with Obama-ethics will be interesting to observe.
A further thought. Humanism seems entrenched in the Obama view of historical destiny. Programs such as the Obama youth corps are straight out of the 20th century humanist experiments; the individual is expected to submit to the needs of the whole. The "New Man" derives from such.
The problem arises when many individuals do not see fit to surrender their own autonomy to the general needs as defined by the autocracy. At that point things get ugly, fast. The national police force (never needed previously) comes into play quickly and efficiently.
There is no reason to believe that Obama is not consumed with such ideas. His recorded statements say as much. It is to our own peril that these are ignored.
Obama was never "vetted". He was created. By Atheist humanists.
OK, one last thing. I have not purposely voted a straight ticket for decades. The last time I did vote a straight ticket was in the seventies when I voted Democrat. I was young, idealistic, and uninformed except by the leftist propaganda machines operating even then. It's not easy to pull free, start from the ground up and think through every aspect of logic and rational thought. It becomes necessary to let loose of ideals and pursue truth instead. There is a vast difference between the two, it turns out. And it is painful to discover how irrational one's worldview has been, when not valuing truth.
Post a Comment